Newswise — The Supreme Court handed down a decision in Utah v. Strieff on Tuesday that will have serious legal consequences for Americans who are stopped by law enforcement unconstitutionally, and are then found to have outstanding warrants — even for something as simple as not paying a traffic ticket, an expert in criminal law said. “The outcome of Strieff substantially expands the latitude law enforcement enjoys to stop and search millions of Americans,” said Nirej Sekhon, associate professor of law at Georgia State University's College of Law. “In the case, the police, by their own admission, first stopped the suspect without a good reason, in violation of the Constitution.”
In 2006, police stopped Edward Strieff, Jr. when he exited a home in South Salt Lake, Utah, that was under surveillance by police after an anonymous tip alleged drugs were being sold there.
During the stop, a detective discovered an outstanding warrant for a minor traffic violation. In a subsequent search, the police found methamphetamine and a drug pipe in Strieff’s possession. He challenged the arrest and search, based on the officer’s lack of reasonable suspicion for the initial stop.
“The question before the Supreme Court was whether that subsequently discovered warrant rendered the police’s continued detention and search of Strieff lawful,” Sekhon said.
“Utah, supported by numerous other states, argued that discovering the warrant was a kind of constitutional reboot, effectively erasing the police’s initial, unconstitutional conduct,” he said.
The Court agreed with Utah, rendering millions of Americans vulnerable to unconstitutional stops, Sekhon said.
“Discovery of an outstanding warrant during an otherwise unconstitutional stop will, in effect, give the police a free pass,” he said. “There are millions of outstanding warrants at any given time in the United States. The vast majority of them are not for murderers, rapists, or others suspected of egregious violent crimes -- they are for failures to appear in court for minor misconduct such as traffic infractions.
“Forgot to pay a traffic ticket? Under the Strieff opinion, forget about challenging an unconstitutional stop that preceded the officer’s discovery of the outstanding warrant,” Sekhon said.
Sekhon teaches Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law, and his research focuses on the relationships between criminal procedure, criminalization, and political culture. His recent article examines stop-and-frisk and other policing tactics in relation to Chicago’s police shootings (https://theconversation.com/chicago-police-shooting-data-may-reveal-new-ways-to-reduce-deaths-and-racial-disparity-54625).
For more information about Sekhon, including links to publications, visit http://law.gsu.edu/profile/nirej-sekhon.
RSS