On June 20, 2016, in a 5-3 opinion written by Thomas, J., the Supreme Court turned the fourth amendment inside out in a criminal case. Thomas found no “flagrant misconduct.” Cops, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, seized a guy and searched him. And prosecuted him on felony drug charges.
Thomas wrote, and four justices joined, and engaged in mental gymnastics that ignores long standing fourth amendment law to rule that because the guy had an outstanding warrant anyway, although for a minor traffic violation and wholly unknown to the officers that accosted the guy, the government did not engage in flagrant misconduct and the convicting evidence was held properly discovered. Nevermind the illegal seizure and search. After shaking the guy down, the government dug up an entry the government made into a database…the issuance of a warrant for a minor traffic violation Thus, according to the majority, the shake down was not flagrant misconduct, and did not warrant exclusion of these ill gotten gains. Because that entry by the government Into a database Stripped this guy of all fourth amendment protections against officious transgression.
What happened to the fourth amendment analysis and standard of objective reasonableness? Is flagrant misconduct more dubious than deliberate indifference?
Utah v Strieff ushers in a new scary era One in which it is the court’s job to justify illegal official conduct In any manner possible.
Status, as determined by the government, not with a hearing, but with the mere issuance of a warrant for a minor infraction, even unknown to officers, now strips one of their constitutional rights. In that case a minor traffic violation. What next? A parking ticket? A zoning violation? An instigator? A critic? A malcontent?
The decision turns the long established fourth amendment standard of objectively reasonable, into “flagrant misconduct” a standard even more dubious than deliberate indifference, apposite to those CONVICTED and imprisoned for a crime.
Has this 5-3 decision created an even bigger problem? Rendering unstable the entire justice system? Maybe. Scalia’s legacy (one of) to civil rights was Heck v Humphrey (discussed here). If success in a civil rights action would impugn the integrity of a criminal conviction, no civil rights claim had yet accrued. No matter how vile the fourth amendment violation. This is because the fourth amendment standards were the same across criminal and civil lines.
This decision eliminates that similarity. There are now two standards. One for criminal. “Flagrant misconduct”. And one for civil. Objective reasonableness.
Can this guy now bring a civil rights action under the objective reasonableness standard and prevail….notwithstanding any conviction he may now suffer because success in his civil action would not undermine nor impugn the criminal conviction because the criminal conviction would stand because of the more dubious apposite standard of flagrant misconduct
Flagrant misconduct is a standard heretofore non existent in constitutional claims analysis. It sounds and appears more dubious than deliberate indifference, the standard apposite to those already convicted and imprisoned.
Now, the government. Can just issue a warrant. For a minor traffic violation. Just a warrant. No requirement it be served. Just entered into the database. No hearing. Nothing. Just a warrant.
With that on file, officers are now free to trample constitutional rights to effect a conviction, even if they don’t know of the warrant.
Facts become irrelevant.
Personhood is irrelevant
Our long standing guaranteed constitutional rights…gone.
Government classification becomes everything
This. Is. Horrifying.
what can I say,
Kathryn S. Bloomfield