Newswise — The case of Utah v. Strieff, currently before the Supreme Court, might not have made major headlines yet. But pay attention: the Court’s opinion may have serious legal consequences for Americans who are stopped by law enforcement unconstitutionally, and then found to have an outstanding warrant — even for something as simple as not paying a traffic ticket, an expert in criminal law said. “The outcome of Strieff could substantially expand or contract 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. “The police, by their own admission, first stopped suspect Strieff 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.
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 is 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.
A Court ruling in agreement with Utah may render millions of Americans vulnerable to unconstitutional stops.
“Discovery of an outstanding warrant during an otherwise unconstitutional stop would, in effect, give the police a free pass,” Sekhon 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? If Utah wins, forget about challenging an unconstitutional stop that precedes 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. Some of his most recent research 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