Supreme Court Waters Down Fourth Amendment

However, recent Supreme Court rulings have raised concerns about the erosion of these protections. A notable case is Utah v. Strieff, where the Court ruled that evidence obtained during an illegal stop could still be admissible if it was discovered after police found an outstanding warrant against the individual. In this instance, despite the initial unlawful stop, the subsequent discovery of a warrant justified the search and seizure of evidence—namely, drugs found on the defendant.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent highlighted a troubling implication of this ruling: it effectively allows police to stop individuals without cause to check for warrants, undermining the Fourth Amendment’s protections for all citizens. As she articulated, this decision permits law enforcement to detain individuals based solely on the possibility of outstanding warrants, regardless of whether they are engaged in any illegal activity.

As Justice Sotomayor wrote so forcefully, this means that police are free to stop you at any time to figure out whether you have an arrest warrant.  If you do, this would justify their stop, no matter how illegal.  As the justice put it:           

“Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.”

 Justice Sotomayor is right.  Many people have arrest warrants for minor offenses such as missing court for a traffic case or other such minor offenses.  The Court in this case has basically ruled that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to these people – if you have a warrant, the police can stop you even if you have done nothing wrong, then search you without repercussions.