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

05-20-2020 01:20pm

StoryCorps Connect During COVID-19: Finding a New Way to Share America’s Stories

StoryCorps pivots to digital to keep building connections between people during the pandemic.

Read more

05-19-2020 05:39pm

Free speech provides comfort during COVID-19 pandemic

Trying circumstances can also present opportunities for people to come together. When people feel as if they face a common challenge, differences and divisions begin to blur. That’s cause for optimism.

Read more

05-14-2020 11:20am

Five steps for public officials to protect public health, regain public trust, and ensure civil liberties during COVID-19 crisis

Americans and their public officials grapple with the dynamic while working to protect public health and maintain the public confidence necessary for successful adoptions of temporary measures and ultimately restoration of their full civil liberties. Charles Koch Institute Senior Fellow Casey Mattox offers advice on the subject.

Read more

Sign up for updates