The Supreme Court’s Controversial Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment

Yesterday, in a 5-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Utah v. Strief, affirming that evidence found after illegal stops is admissible in court so long as officers first confirm that the defendants have outstanding warrants prior to conducting a search. Adam Liptak covered the decision in The New York Times.

The case started when a police officer stopped Edward Strieff after Streiff left a house being monitored for drug activity. After learning that Strieff had an existing warrant for a traffic violation, the officer proceeded to search the vehicle and found methamphetamines.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that as long as the pre-existing warrant is valid, the subsequent search does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a vehement dissent, arguing that if an officer finds out that you have a warrant out, even for a minor offense, “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.”

The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent law enforcement from conducting searches based on little to no evidence, making Utah v. Strief a very consequential and controversial interpretation of the Fourth Amendment for citizens around the nation.

More Blog Posts

04-16-2019 11:37am

New Survey Reveals American Consumers Support Businesses Hiring Those with Criminal Records

New research from SHRM and the Charles Koch Institute found that the vast majority of American consumers support purchasing goods and services from businesses that employ people with non-violent criminal records.

Read more

04-04-2019 03:05pm

On 70th Anniversary of NATO, Key Member States Question Its Relevancy and Efficacy

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) celebrates its 70th anniversary, and in advance of this historical commemoration, a new survey asked respondents in key NATO member states about NATO’s effectiveness and relevance in today’s world.

Read more

04-01-2019 05:29pm

Protecting Protest: How Proposed Rules Would Chill Free Expression Around DC Landmarks

Given the timeless importance of protecting civil liberties, the Charles Koch Institute today joins the ACLU in voicing concern about a proposed National Park Service (NPS) rule that could hinder free speech and peaceful assembly around DC landmarks.

Read more

Sign up for updates