Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden plans Friday visit to Grand Rapids
SUBSCRIBE NOW
99¢ per month for 3 months
SUBSCRIBE NOW
99¢ per month for 3 months

High Court gives cops more power to stop some people

Mark Sherman
Associated Press

Washington — A divided Supreme Court bolstered police powers on Monday, ruling that evidence of a crime in some cases may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

The 5-3 decision drew heated dissents from liberal justices who warned that the outcome would encourage police to violate people’s rights.

The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for him.

Police Detective Doug Fackrell arrested Strieff and routinely searched him, finding that he was carrying methamphetamine.

The case raised the question of whether the valid warrant outweighs the stop, which was illegal because Fackrell lacked any reasonable suspicion that Strieff had been violating the law. It was the court’s latest case that questions whether evidence should be thrown out of court because the police did something wrong or illegal that led to the discovery of the evidence.

Justice Clarence Thomas said for the court that the officer’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law. “While Officer Fackrell’s decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful,” Thomas wrote.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent that the decision is a blow to constitutional rights.

“The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a portion of her opinion that expressed only her own views, Sotomayor also described the “humiliations” of unjustified police searches and said that “people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

Justice Elena Kagan filed a separate dissent in which she said the ruling “creates unfortunate incentives for the police — indeed practically invites them to do what Fackrell did here.”

The fourth member of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined the four conservatives to form a majority on the eight-justice court.

The issue is especially significant, Sotomayor said, because “outstanding warrants are increasingly common.”

In one prominent example, the Justice Department’s 2015 report that faulted police practices in Ferguson, Missouri, found that 16,000 of Ferguson’s 21,000 residents had outstanding warrants.

In other decisions

■The Supreme Court turned away another challenge to state laws banning the sale of rapid-fire assault weapons on Monday, a victory for gun control supporters at a time of heightened public concern over the issue.

■Justices will decide whether some immigrants locked up longer than six months during deportation proceedings should have a chance to be released.

■The court upheld a system that has helped companies like Google Inc. and Apple Inc. invalidate hundreds of disputed patents without having to go to court.

■The High Court ruled that the Labor Department must do a better job of explaining why it is changing a longstanding policy on whether certain workers deserve overtime pay.