3 ms·

Whren v US decision [0], Scalia gave police the power to stop and search any driver as long as they assert a traffic violation as the pretext for the stop. 1:

by jibe 4y ago

Whren v US decision [0], Scalia gave police the power to stop and search any driver as long as they assert a traffic violation as the pretext for the stop. 1: it was a unanimous decision 2: they can’t just assert a traffic violation, there has to be an actual violation of the law.

tstrimple 4y ago
> 2: they can’t just assert a traffic violation, there has to be an actual violation of the law. How's that working out in practice?
Petersipoi 4y ago
Seems to me like GP is using the word "assert" intentionally to make it seem like Scalia supports giving cops the power to make up charges then act accordingly. No, Scalia didn't support police flying a helicopter up to your window and pretending they see marijuana then raiding your house. And yeah GP is going to argue that "assert" doesn't mean claiming something that isn't true. But the intention is obvious to the point that it's really difficult to see good faith here.
- modriano 4y ago
  It's really not possible to dispute that the Supreme Court just tells police what magic words they need to include in their reports to make unconstitutional searches constitutional. In Terry v Ohio [0], a plainclothes policeman saw three guys casing a store, saw the outlines of concealed items that he believed to be guns, he stopped and searched them on that basis, and two of the three guys had weapons. The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible and the officer's "reasonable suspicion" made the search lawful, as the officer's safety may be endangered if they're questioning individuals with weapons. Without a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a concealed weapon, though, the frisk is an unconstitutional 4A violation. In this NY Civil Liberties Union study of stop and frisk data [1], going through NYPD stop and frisk data, from 2003 to 2013, 2585945 frisks were performed but weapons were only found in ~2% (!!!) of frisks. If your suspicions are wrong 98% of the time, it's pretty hard to describe the suspicion as "reasonable", but the SC declared that asserting reasonable suspicion is all it takes to make those unconstitutional searches constitutional. I'm not anti police, I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago and I have immense respect for a number of the officers and detectives I've worked with. But I can't look at these facts and then pretend they don't exist. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 [1] https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopandfrisk_briefer_2002-2013_final.pdf#page=9 https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopa...
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago Whoah, neat, say more?
modriano 4y ago
1. Yeah. Scalia wrote the opinion, and every other Justice signed onto it. Scalia is not some unique iconoclastic privacy loving Justice, he was in line with the way the court thinks about the 4A. 2a. Imagine a police officer falsely alleged a traffic violation. How much equipment would the pulled-over driver need to have to prove the allegation was false, and how much would it cost to then prove the allegation false? How much equipment would police cars need to prove every allegation was valid? Why are we going to pretend this isn't just another case where the Supreme Court is coaching police on what words they need to put in reports (eg "furtive gestures" to justify a Terry stop, or any traffic violation for this) to allow "us" to have our cake (the 4A) and eat it too (still overpolice Black neighborhoods and chase Black people out of suburbs)? 2b. Should driving 26 mph in a zone with a 25 mph speed limit eliminate protections against a stop and a search? If there are so many traffic laws that it's inevitable that following someone for 10 minutes would yield 1 violation, in what sense do we really have any 4A protection while on the road?
8note 4y ago
For 2, isn't that some weird logistics? You have to bring them to court, convict them, then you can search the vehicle?

by jibe 4y ago

tstrimple 4y ago

> 2: they can’t just assert a traffic violation, there has to be an actual violation of the law. How's that working out in practice?

Petersipoi 4y ago

Seems to me like GP is using the word "assert" intentionally to make it seem like Scalia supports giving cops the power to make up charges then act accordingly. No, Scalia didn't support police flying a helicopter up to your window and pretending they see marijuana then raiding your house. And yeah GP is going to argue that "assert" doesn't mean claiming something that isn't true. But the intention is obvious to the point that it's really difficult to see good faith here.

modriano 4y ago
It's really not possible to dispute that the Supreme Court just tells police what magic words they need to include in their reports to make unconstitutional searches constitutional. In Terry v Ohio [0], a plainclothes policeman saw three guys casing a store, saw the outlines of concealed items that he believed to be guns, he stopped and searched them on that basis, and two of the three guys had weapons. The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible and the officer's "reasonable suspicion" made the search lawful, as the officer's safety may be endangered if they're questioning individuals with weapons. Without a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a concealed weapon, though, the frisk is an unconstitutional 4A violation. In this NY Civil Liberties Union study of stop and frisk data [1], going through NYPD stop and frisk data, from 2003 to 2013, 2585945 frisks were performed but weapons were only found in ~2% (!!!) of frisks. If your suspicions are wrong 98% of the time, it's pretty hard to describe the suspicion as "reasonable", but the SC declared that asserting reasonable suspicion is all it takes to make those unconstitutional searches constitutional. I'm not anti police, I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago and I have immense respect for a number of the officers and detectives I've worked with. But I can't look at these facts and then pretend they don't exist. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 [1] https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopandfrisk_briefer_2002-2013_final.pdf#page=9 https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopa...
- tptacek 4y ago
  I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago Whoah, neat, say more?

modriano 4y ago

1. Yeah. Scalia wrote the opinion, and every other Justice signed onto it. Scalia is not some unique iconoclastic privacy loving Justice, he was in line with the way the court thinks about the 4A. 2a. Imagine a police officer falsely alleged a traffic violation. How much equipment would the pulled-over driver need to have to prove the allegation was false, and how much would it cost to then prove the allegation false? How much equipment would police cars need to prove every allegation was valid? Why are we going to pretend this isn't just another case where the Supreme Court is coaching police on what words they need to put in reports (eg "furtive gestures" to justify a Terry stop, or any traffic violation for this) to allow "us" to have our cake (the 4A) and eat it too (still overpolice Black neighborhoods and chase Black people out of suburbs)? 2b. Should driving 26 mph in a zone with a 25 mph speed limit eliminate protections against a stop and a search? If there are so many traffic laws that it's inevitable that following someone for 10 minutes would yield 1 violation, in what sense do we really have any 4A protection while on the road?

8note 4y ago

For 2, isn't that some weird logistics? You have to bring them to court, convict them, then you can search the vehicle?