#sotomayer

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concludes her dissent in Irick v. Tennessee with the kind of rhetorical flourish that is rarely seen in judicial opinions. “If the law permits this execution to go forward in spite of the horrific final minutes that” the inmate at the heart of this case is likely to experience, “then we have stopped being a civilized nation and accepted barbarism.”

The Chaps Do Wonder If Their English Abilities Are Up To It

Have no fear, of course they are ..

I don’t think that … districting for partisan advantage has no positive values. I would point you to, for instance, Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in [2004’s Vieth v. Jubelirer] which has an extensive discussion of how it can actually do good things for our system to have districts drawn in a way…

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/criminal-defense-attorney-supreme-court-ruling-in-utah-v-strieff-puts-u-s-on-fast-track-for-increased-illegal-search-and-seizure-activity-%ef%bb%bf/

Criminal defense attorney: “Supreme Court ruling in Utah v. Strieff puts U.S. on fast track for increased illegal search and seizure activity” 

Criminal defense attorney: “Supreme Court ruling in Utah v. Strieff puts U.S. on fast track for increased illegal search and seizure activity”  Media Contact: Barbara Fornasiero, EAFocus Communications, cell: 248.260.8466, [email protected]

Southfield, Mich. — June 20, 2016 — Neil Rockind, founder of Southfield-based criminal defense law firm,

Rockind Law, says the Supreme Court’s decision today in Utah v Strieff isn’t just a slippery slope, it’s a fast track to open the doors for police and government agencies to conduct a search and seizure using pretext and un-related warrants.

The decision before the Supreme Court was whether the Utah Supreme Court was correct in its ruling that evidence seized from the respondent, Edward Strieff, through an outstanding traffic warrant was inadmissible, given that Strieff was illegally stopped by the police. During the traffic stop (that was without cause), the police discovered that Strieff had a warrant. The case ultimately went to the Utah Supreme Court, which ruled in

favor of Streiff, noting the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally under the Fourth Amendment because the stop was illegal. Today the Supreme Court overruled the Utah Supreme Court’s finding.

“This ruling puts the U.S. on the fast track for more – and more egregious – illegal search and seizure activity,

using pretext and warrants immaterial to the matter at hand,” Rockind said. “It’s also troubling that the

majority decision cited the constitutionality in part on the basis that the police officer in the case showed no

flagrant misconduct in the course of the search and seizure. Police behavior, good or bad, does not negate or affirm constitutionality.” 

Rockind said the dissenting opinions in the case are frighteningly on point. For example, in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “…This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong…If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.” 

“Justice Sotomayor, writing in her dissent, has captured the essence of what is wrong with the Supreme Court

ruling,” Rockind said. “Given the opportunity to be vigilant in protecting a constitutional right, the Supreme

Court chose to severely weaken it instead.” 

The entire Supreme Court decision can be read here.

About Rockind Law 

Rockind Law is a Southfield, Michigan-based criminal defense law firm aggressively pursuing justice for individuals facing criminal charges, including white collar crime, drunk driving, narcotics and assault. To find out more about the firm’s services and resources, visit http://www.rockindlaw.com/.