Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Supreme Court case erodes rights fundamental to American liberty

Toward the end of June, people across the country begin their preparations for the Fourth of July three-day weekend.

Americans dearly love their holidays, and attention is often focused more on the celebratory aspects of Independence Day than on the reason for the celebrations in the first place. But between plans for barbecues and parades, and finding a few sparklers and fireworks, we would be well-served to consider another important “fourth.” The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This amendment was prominent in the news this week because the Supreme Court expanded the power of police by ruling that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

The ruling stemmed from a case in the city of South Salt Lake in Utah in which police illegally stopped a man but then found an outstanding warrant for him when running a routine name check. He was arrested and searched, and police found methamphetamine. Lawyers for the man argued that using this evidence violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The state of Utah disagreed.

Justice Clarence Thomas spoke for the court majority in defending the police actions, because they were not a flagrant violation of the law. Justice Sonia Sotomayer, writing in dissent, called the decision a serious blow to the constitutional rights of individual citizens. She is correct.

In her extraordinary opinion, Sotomayer paints a chilling picture of the implications of the ruling. “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.”

Sotomayer extended her views – clarifying that they were hers alone – to warn that the court ruling may be used to justify a wide range of police actions, including frisking, being arrested, fingerprinting and body searches, all beginning with the discovery of an outstanding warrant for a parking ticket or other minor infraction. In effect, she argues, “this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights.”

It may be hard to imagine such a dire chain of events taking place after a traffic stop on a sunny, tree-lined street in Durango. Not so hard to envision, however, in a rougher neighborhood of Chicago or Albuquerque. Or, as Sotomayer points out, in a community like Ferguson, Missouri, where tensions between police and the citizens are at a simmer and charges of racial profiling are rampant.

Ready to enjoy a holiday, most of us are not eager to study our Constitution and whether its guarantees are being honored or eroded by the courts. Perhaps we should be. The fireworks show celebrating our hard-fought freedoms might not be so brilliant if we have to dwell on the possible pitfalls awaiting us on the drive home.



Reader Comments