>>78115130
Really nigger, you're linking Salon? Pastebin that shit you dumb nigger

>>78115130

That's what authoritarian demoshit judges get you.

>>78115130

>So the cops have zero consequences when it comes to illegal searches.

That's not what the decision was, you illiterate peasant. The decision states that an illegal traffic stop doesn't make evidence inadmissible when the subject has a valid search warrant out on his person.

>>78115215
Well it's one of like three sites reporting on it. Which is why I'm somewhat skeptical

>>78115130
Because it only applies narrowly in a very specific circumstance. It only applies to the attenuation doctrine where they have to grant a motion to suppress if the evidence is too attenuated from the warrant that was issued.

What SCOTUS did was make an exception for when there is an outstanding warrant for like a traffic violation and the police happen to stop the guy and search his person and find meth. Technically, this evidence was seized illegally because its too attenuated from the traffic stop violation. Ordinarily, this evidence would be suppressed and the guy would only face the traffic violation, but now SCOTUS allows him to face charges for the drugs as well.

>>78115249
Did you even read the article?

>>78115130
Cops don't owe you shit bud
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

>>78115531
So while walking on the street a cop can ask for your ID and check if you have unpaid parking tickets. If you do that's now reasonable cause to search the person??

>>78116369

No, you would have to have a warrant, or the officer would have to have probable cause, such as detecting the odor of drugs.

>>78116369
No, its more like

Cop can stop you to check your ID, then decide to search you and they find drugs (illegal search btw, no probable cause), AND if you have an outstanding warrant (even if the officer doesn't know about it at the time), the drugs are admissible in court regardless of how they were obtained.

You need Illegal search+warrant for drugs to be admissible

>>78116478
>>78116664

Alright thanks for clearing this up.

>>78116949
The 4th Amendment has a lot of little exceptions like this. While its true that this can be abused to set people up and will lead to a lot more incidental drug convictions, this exception is really an extension of the inevitability doctrine that allows police to admit evidence illegally obtained that they were going to discover anyways. It means there will be less cases appealing decisions to argue over small technicalities because there is a brightline rule now.

>>78115249
>authoritarian demoshit judges get you.
>all the conservative judges pushed this through.