I'm a little taken aback by this, but in thought, the actual court case seems to be about evidence and not the stop itself. I realize you can't have evidence without the stop, warrant or not. however, does this mean that the police are now able to bypass the 4th and can run ID checks or whatever you guys do, or is it just saying that evidence in a stop with someone with a warrant is admissible in court for additional charges? how much carte blanch does this give to LEO? Is Sotomayor right, in that profiling someone is now not considered a problem?
-
-
Dissent
I read part of her dissent and I can't help but wonder where these, "parents" are who have to give this speech to their children? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but is this an urban vs a rural problem? Is it only in the major cities? Maybe it's a North vs South thing? I don't know anyone of color who got this speech as a kid. I will say that after Treyvon happened, I've said (to lots of kids of all colors) don't run around with a hoodie on if you aren't jogging. It makes you look suspicious.
-
One of the topics in a seminar I attended this past week was the disappearing exclusionary rule. This case seems to push it further down that path, but I haven't really read the decision in depth yet.
Sent from my SM-G930T using TapatalkComment
Comment