Justice Sotomayor showed the quality of her legal intellect in a dissenting decision regarding Search and Seizure. She clearly demonstrated her hack credentials and ability to ignore the law when it clashes with her biases. 

Had the sequence of events gone differently, she probably would have been writing the majority decision, but they didn’t.  She is entitled to her opinion, but not her own set of facts.

Here’s the deal, this was a bread and butter set up for me when I was working narcotics.  Police get information that there is a dope house at such and such a location.  Activity consistent with a drug house is described, people coming and going staying a short time and then leaving.  Cops see the defendant leaving the house, but have no idea how long he had been there. (This undermines the short stay pattern.)  They followed him away from the location and stopped him.

There are two variations on the theme that can come into play (1) observed traffic violation, or (2) Terry Stop, suspicious activity, person, time and place.

The officer went with Terry.  During the course of the stop the officer identified the defendant and ran his information for wanted and records.  Out pops a warrant for a minor violation. The officer arrests the defendant for the outstanding warrant.  The whole dynamic changes at this point.  The defendant is now searched not based on Terry v Ohio, but upon Chimel v California, search incident to a lawful arrest.  The officer needs no probable cause independent of the arrest to justify the search.

The defendant apparently has a suppression hearing and is successful in convincing the court that the initial traffic stop was without “reasonable suspicion”, the Terry standard, or “Probable Cause” a higher standard.

At this point Sotomayor and I are in the same boat.  If the officer arrested the defendant, took him to the police station and upon booking him found the warrant, then I would agree with the “Wise Latina”. In other words if the cops found the dope before the warrant, then the guy should walk.(I think this argument ultimately fails but I’m sympathetic but not supportive of her argument).* But that isn’t what happened. The defendant was not arrested until after the warrant came to light.

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) basically gives a peace officer no choice if you are aware of an outstanding warrant and the offender can be arrested, then he goes to jail.  This isn’t always the case especially with minor traffic violations and busy patrol sectors.

Sotomayor heaps all sorts of blame on the police for causing the situation where so many minorities  are running around with minor warrants.  Huh? These minor warrants, chances are, started out as citations where the defendant promised to contact the court prior to a specified time, in answer to the charge.  The defendant either didn’t show up or showed up and entered into an agreement with the court to achieve a specified performance. However, the defendant did not honor his word.  Sotomayor seems to believe that a person with a minor warrant should have an expectation that he won’t be hassled as long as the warrant is outstanding.

Cops know that a turd’s word is no good.  They know that chances are the traffic ticket they write today will turn into a warrant three weeks down the road. So given the opportunity, when they see a player or would be player commit a traffic violation, they dab a ticket on his ass.  Once the ticket goes to warrant the cops then have a free shot to pick the turd up by the ankles and shake him to see what falls out of his pockets.

*There is no indication that the cops found the dope first and then the warrant.  Had they done so then I would have expected an argument for “inevitable discovery” which the court has already accepted.  Either way this case is pretty much a loser and not the place to get all impassioned about.  Reading between the lines she is arguing for a return to the bad old days where cop’s motives were always in question and turd’s motives were beyond reproach.