Your DUI Pro
Weekends & Evening Appointments Available 24 Hours

Free Consultation 701-746-4107

Toll Free 701-203-1768

Supreme Court, down one Justice, hears search and seizure case

With the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court is down to just 8 Justices. This could make it difficult for the Court to deliver precedential rulings on important topics, as many Supreme Court Rulings are decided by a single vote. With an even number of Justices, 4-4 ties are now likely.

Earlier this week, the Court began hearing oral arguments in a case that has important criminal defense implications. Specifically, it could either strengthen or weaken our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure by law enforcement.

In 2006, a police officer in Utah went to stake out a house based on an anonymous tip that drug activity was likely being conducted there. Due to people frequently entering and leaving the house, the officer suspected that it was connected to drug deals. He decided to follow one person who left the house on foot to walk to a nearby convenience store.

He stopped the man, asked for his ID, and ran a background check. The man had a "small traffic warrant" outstanding, and this gave the officer an excuse to arrest him and to conduct a search. The search revealed that the man was carrying methamphetamine.

When evidence is obtained illegally, it cannot be used against the defendant in court. The Utah Supreme Court decided that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was illegal for the officer to stop the man in the first place. The officer did not have reasonable and individual suspicion that the man had committed a crime - the existence of an outstanding warrant was not discovered until after the man was stopped.

Attorneys representing the state have said that the stop should be considered legal because the officer made a good-faith, reasonable mistake. But confusion about the law is never an acceptable defense by civilians. So why should police officers be given a pass?

Moreover, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, ruling in favor of the state in this case could set a dangerous precedent by giving law enforcement more latitude than is reasonable. She asked: "What stops us from becoming a police state and just having the police stand on the corner down here and stop every person, ask them for identification, put it through, and if a warrant comes up, searching them?”

Depending on how the court rules, this case could have significant implications for defendants in criminal cases across the nation, including here in Minnesota and North Dakota.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Need Answers Now? Contact Us Immediately.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Contact Information

Grand Forks Office
215 A South 4th Street
Grand Forks, ND 58201

Phone: 701-746-4107
Grand Forks Law Office Map

East Grand Forks Office
712 Demers Avenue
East Grand Forks, MN 56721

Phone: 701-746-4107
Phone: 218-773-6934
East Grand Forks Law Office Map

Minot Office
201 South Main Street, Suite 200
Minot, ND 58701

Phone: 701-746-4107
Minot Law Office Map

  • National College for DUI Defense | MCMXCV | GENERAL MEMBER
  • Premier DUI - American Association Attorneys
  • NACDL - National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
  • state Bar Association of North Dakota

Method of Payment

VISA , Master Card , Discover Network