Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on stop and search without cause?

What about all that fruit of the poisoned tree stuff? Undermine the bill of rights, whats to stop more decisions like these?

You mean to tell me nobody on here has never been stopped for a BS reason? I have been stopped for made up reasons as many times as legit reasons. I've even been ticketed by a lying cop and fought it and lost. I have argued with cops and dared them to take me to jail for the whatever BS they stopped me for. There is a lot of rotten cops out there. If you don't know your rights, you don't have. If they found the drugs in his pocket, he's a dumbass. If they found the drugs in his car, it's his own dumbass fault for letting them search the car.

The big problem is that now the police don't need "probable cause" they just need "whoops I made a mistake when I pulled you over"... They ( law-enforcement ) need to know their jobs and play by the rules...

Really bad call. So we have a judicial system that is overburdened as is, where folks can't get a decent lawyer not due to incompetence, but caseload, and now if you get stopped, the cop can add to this? So once again we skip due process, and head straight to jail...over something as minor as a parking ticket. In DC if it was possible to write the cops the same tickets they give out, there wouldn't be much of a force left. They'd all be tied into the judicial system waiting their turns as their careers are ruined.

Based on the facts recited in the opinion there was no search without cause. There was cause for a search because of the valid warrant for Strieff's arrest.

There was a Fourth Amendment violation, but that doesn't mean everything gets thrown out. Strieff still has rights he can enforce regarding his initial unlawful stop.

Try to step back from the specific facts here; the minor traffic offense leading to the warrant, the discovered contraband. Try to just reduce the scenario to its minimal essential elements. 1. There was an unlawful stop. 2. There was a valid arrest warrant discovered by police. 3. The individual was not searched except after and because of his arrest under the existing warrant. Now ask, if the police stumble upon someone, based on no suspicion, and find a valid warrant outstanding against him, should they be able to arrest? Police can arrest pursuant to valid warrants, so the answer appears to be yes.

"But the initial stop was unlawful!" True (though this point was not litigated; is it reasonable to ask a person who just left a suspected drug dealer's house a few questions?), but let's test out the opposite outcome with slightly different facts. What if the police conduct a brief but unlawful investigatory stop and then discover an arrest warrant for the speed individual because he is wanted for murder, or terrorism, or conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? Should they be required to let the wanted suspect go free because of the initial unlawful stop? If so, for how long must they allow the suspected murderer or terrorist or conspirator to go free before arresting him? Long enough to allow him to dump any contraband or evidence of any crime he might be carrying? Should the underlying charge of murder or terrorism or conspiracy be discharged? We should not require police to let wanted people go. Whether we should have outstanding arrest warrants for minor traffic violations is another issue, but that problem lies with legislatures, not courts.

"But couldn't police abuse this method of arrest and search?" Sure, and abuse shouldn't be allowed. No abuse was found here. Don't be fooled into thinking that police searched him before finding the valid warrant, or that any pretext for this event was shown. Justice Thomas addressed the consequences police face of they do this as a scheme or pretext.

The police have an awful lot of power, and they should. They are after all the police. Power is always susceptible to abuse. But we shouldn't require that valid powers be taken away because of the possibility of abuse, we should be mindful of abuse.

Strieff can probably sure for his unlawful detention, and maybe he can get some money out of it. Maybe the arresting officer should be disciplined or fired. Maybe Utah shouldn't have arrest warrants for minor traffic offenses. But if we're going to have arrest warrants for everything from murder to speeding then we should not let wanted people escape arrest except for calculated, deliberate police misconduct.

I found the majority opinion disappointing. The dissent identified some wicked second and third order effects that seem likely to be prescient, particularly when you see how civil forfeiture has similarly gone off the rails due to perverse incentives.

What was the cause for the stop? Did he have a KNOWN criminal history? Was he a KNOWN drug seller or user? Had been stopped for a traffic violation? What was the UNLAWFUL stop! Doesn't matter the color of the skin! If I seen a purple people eater that I have arrested before for trafficking in drugs and I see him and he dropped a piece of paper, that is littering! stop, to write a ticket. Run him and he has a warrant for anything then he is arrested. Once arrested for the warrant then it is automatic search, (weapons, drugs) NOT against the 4th amendment! In most states if you bring weapons or drugs in to a facility of the penal system you would then catch another charge. SO wouldn't that then fall on the officer for improper search and then be thrown out for him NOT doing his job?

Strange that conservatives agreed to this.

It's a little muddier than that article makes it appear. First paragraph of the actual ruling shows the guy leaving a house suspected of drug sales. Read it here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

In 1977, I had one of the first five in-car computer terminals on the Kansas City Police Department. Without any reasonable suspicion (Terry v. Ohio) or probable cause (Spinelli v. United States, at the time), I would run license plates or people I knew by sight all shift long as I cruised the city. Frequently, my "sixth sense" would hit a Bingo. I'd stop the car or person and perform whatever duty I deemed appropriate dependent upon the warrant information. What I did then is, in principle, no different than the dictum of this new case. It's always been about how one "wrote the report!!!"