Monday, June 20th
Supreme Court Ruling Forgives Some Cases of Unlawful Searches
On Monday, June 20th, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 on a case that will now allow evidence obtained following an illegal stop to be used in court.
The case involves an incident in which a police detective found contraband on a driver after conducting an illegal stop. Detective Douglas Fackrell, the defendant, was tasked with staking out a house that allegedly was used for drug distribution and sale. Fackrell staked out the house in South Salt Lake City, Utah about 3 hours a week. Fackrell witnessed Joseph Strieff, the plaintiff, exit the house and pulled over Strieff without valid cause. Fackrell asked for Streiff’s ID and discovered that Strieff had an outstanding warrant for an unpaid parking ticket. Fackrell then arrested Streiff and gave him a routine search during which he found a small bag of methamphetamine.
Under the “exclusionary rule,” evidence obtained from an illegal search cannot be used in court. However, this particular case challenged the applicability of the exclusionary rule, and questioned whether an arrest warrant outweighs an illegal stop.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion ruled that Fackrell’s actions were not a flagrant violation of the law and that “while Officer Fackrell’s decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful.”
The Court ruling resulted in outcry among liberal leaning legal commentators. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who opposed the ruling, issued a dissent arguing that the Court’s ruling infringes on Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. “The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,” said Sotomayor in her dissent.
Sotomayor quoted a statistic reported by the Department of Justice which showed that of the 21,000 residents of Ferguson, Missouri, 16,000 of these residents had an outstanding warrant in 2015. Most of the warrants that were minor offenses such as parking violations. Similarly, Cincinnati for example, has 100,000 pending warrants for not showing up to a court date and New York City also currently has 1.2 million outstanding warrants. Federal databases show that there are more than 7.8 million warrants nationwide. In many cases, people might not even realize that they are the subject of an outstanding warrant. Does this Supreme Court ruling mean that police officers don’t need to worry about the exclusionary rule for people with outstanding warrants for minor violations?
It is important to note, that this is not the only instance that has been used to allow in evidence that would otherwise be subject to the exclusionary rule. A case from 1984 was referenced during the hearing, in which several officers entered an apartment while waiting for a warrant. The 1984 case also was decided in favor of the officers. However, Justice Sotomayor stated that the 1984 case did not apply in this instance because the only way Fackrell would have found the evidence is if he had committed an illegal act. Sotomayor raised the concern that the ruling may encourage officers to conduct unlawful searches in order to “fish for evidence.”
Supreme Court Declines Gun Control Hearing
On Monday, June 20th, the Supreme Court declined to hear two cases regarding the gun bans imposed in Connecticut and New York.
Gun rights activists challenged two state laws that prohibited the ownership of specific assault-style firearms. However, both cases were denied certiorari leaving the current state laws in place.
The Connecticut Assault Weapon ban was enacted in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting of 2012. The ban prohibits over 180 firearms and features, and was later used to write the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013.
The laws are “banning the whiskeys, but not the vodkas.” says Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California School of Law. The argument is that while the bans limit some forms of firearms, they still allow other firearms that are similar in function and capabilities. For example, a weapon that has the appearance of an assault rifle (pistol grip, made of metal, barrel sheath, etc.) will be banned. On the other hand, a variation of the same weapon, that fires the same ammunition, with the same size magazine and with the same rate of fire will not necessarily be banned if it does not have the same name and appearance.
The last Supreme Court ruling involving Second Amendment rights was the McDonald v. City of Chicago case in 2010, regarding whether or not gun regulation could be dictated by state law. The hearing affirmed the 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, which ruled that a person had the right to bear arms for the traditional purposes of self-defense and home protection.
Thursday, June 23rd
Supreme Court Deadlocked in Immigrant DAPA Case
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on the Constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) Act.
DAPA was intended to shield immigrants from deportation who have been in the country since 2010, have no criminal records, and who are parents of legal U.S. citizens. The bill was announced in 2014 as a part of President Obama’s executive plan to address immigration concerns.
President Obama was opposed by 26 states who argued that the Executive Order violated Article II of the U.S. Constitution. DAPA was opposed on the basis that the President’s duty is not to write laws, but “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The 26 states that opposed DAPA were led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The case, United States v. Texas, started with a ruling by the U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas. Judge Hanen halted the program in February 2015 on the grounds that the change in law failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Further dispute arose in Court as to whether or not states could challenge executive programs regarding immigration.
With no definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on the case, DAPA will remain dormant until a potential rehearing when the Court becomes fully staffed again. Thus, millions of immigrants who would have been protected from deportation by DAPA must continue to wait before a final decision can be made regarding their legal rights.
President Obama said in statement, “I think it’s heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who’ve raised families here, who hope for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way.”
“This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Paxton.
Jorge-Mario Cabrera, a Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles spokesman, stated that “We feel that justice has turned it’s back on millions of immigrants who, much like our founding fathers and mothers, sought a better future for themselves and their children and yet continue to live in the shadows without respect and dignity that they deserve.”
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in favor of a policy known as “Affirmative Action” that allows Universities to admit students based on race to increase campus diversity.
The dispute started when Abigail Fisher was denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008. The University of Texas’ policy of admittance guaranteed admission to high school students who were within the top 10 percent GPA of their graduating class. If a student was not within the top 10 percent of the class, other factors were considered for admittance including race. Fisher claimed that the University of Texas denied her an equal opportunity of education that is protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to review Fisher’s case in 2013, but sent it back the Appeals Court for further examination.
The Court ruled in favor of the University of Texas, following the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruling that held that the University’s process was Constitutional for “limited use of race in its search for holistic diversity.”
University of Texas President Gregory Fenves stated “We must make sure all of our students are able to excel in the wider world when they leave campus — educating them in an environment as diverse as the United States is one of the effective ways to so.”
President Obama also praised the ruling saying “I’m pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society and that this country should provide a high-quality education to all our young people regardless of their background.”
However, much opposition still remains in regard to affirmative action. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who opposed the ruling, referred to to the ruling as “affirmative action gone wild,” alluding to the notion that attempts at diversity have trumped rights of equality.
“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled that students applying to the University of Texas can be treated differently because of their race or ethnicity,” said Fisher in statement, “I hope that the nation will one day move beyond affirmative action.”
Leave a Comment