In Searing Dissent, Sotomayor Calls Out Police Practices That Target Minorities

Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor discusses the food traditions of the Supreme Court at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington, Wednesday, June 1, 2016. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a searing — and at times, wrenching — dissent in a Supreme Court illegal-stop-and-search case in which she accused the conservative majority of giving “officers an array of instruments to probe and examine you.”

“When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate
cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner,” she wrote. “We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.”

She was responding to a majority opinion issues Wednesday which in effect loosened the exclusionary rule, meaning the suppression of certain evidence obtained illegally in order to deter law enforcement from engaging in unconstitutional policing practices.

The case, Utah v. Strieff, weighed whether evidence that Utah resident Edward Strieff was carrying narcotics was admissible in court because the drugs were found after the officer conducted an illegal search of the individual. Strieff argued his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated with the admission.

After stopping and searching Strieff, who was leaving a house the officer was monitoring on a tip of possible drug dealing activity, the officer ran a warrant-check on Strieff’s driver’s license and found he had a warrant for a traffic violation. A five-justice majority — that included liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, as well as the four Republican-appointees — said the warrant made the evidence admissible, even though the initial stop and search lacked reasonable suspicion.

“The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff,” the majority wrote. “And, it is especially significant that there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell’s illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct.”

Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned not to be “soothed by the opinion’s technical language,” as she said the 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.”

Sotomayor said that the court had downplayed the broader effects the ruling could have by not recognizing the millions of outstanding warrants for minor offenses.

She was joined in most of her dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who also joined a dissent penned by Justice Elena Kagen). But, in the final portion of Sotomayor’s dissent, she said she was “[w]riting only for myself, and drawing on my professional experiences.” There, she expounded upon the “severe consequences” the unlawful stops in question have, including being “degrading” and causing “indignity.”

“Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more,” Sotomayor, the first Latina justice on the Supreme Court, said. “This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact.”

Since being appointed to the court by President Obama in 2009, Sotomayor has earned the reputation of being particularly attuned to how the criminal justice system affects marginalized communities. Her dissent, citing various cases, detailed how the stops felt to the person being targeted.

She confronted the racial implications of the policing practices — including, what is known as “the talk” minority parents give their children about law enforcement — even as this case concerned a white defendant.

She accused the majority opinion of “legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness,” and of telling “everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time.”

Read the majority opinion and dissents below:

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. If your anal probes are limited to a yearly visit to your proctologist you’re just not living.

  2. Avatar for pshah pshah says:

    It’s as if these Justices have never heard of Ferguson. That police department was notorious for handing out fines and citations to largely minority members of the community. And it resulted in a tragic breakdown in communication between the police and the community. It also resulted in fines, that were largely unaffordable, multiplying to the point these people couldn’t get jobs and were afraid to even venture outside in fear of being arrested. As a result, you have wasted lives stuck in idle.

    And now they want to use a traffic warrant…a traffic warrant?! an excuse to infringe on an individual’s rights? A citation that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. I’m very disappointed in the more progressive members of the Judiciary.

    I expect the “Freedom Caucus” and the “Minutemen” to be all over this…not.

  3. Of course this decision is not relevant when the stop and search of All-American football players is at issue. They don’t need no stinking Fourth Amendment!!

    Alabama junior Cam Robinson, one of the most talented offensive tackles in college football, will not be prosecuted on charges stemming from his arrest last month in his hometown of Monroe, La.
    The district attorney declined to prosecute the case due to insufficient evidence, per NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport.
    "I want to emphasize once again that the main reason I'm doing this is that I refuse to ruin the lives of two young men who have spent their adolescence and teenage years working and sweating, while we were all at home in the air conditioning," District Attorney Jerry Jones told KNOE News.
    Robinson was charged with illegal possession of stolen firearms, a felony, as well as possession of a controlled dangerous substance and illegal carrying of a weapon in the presence of narcotics. His Alabama teammate Laurence "Hootie" Jones, also of Monroe, was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance and illegal carrying of a weapon in the presence of narcotics.
    The arraignment of the pair, scheduled for last week, was postponed on Thursday. The decision not to prosecute the case was made on Thursday before the arraignment was postponed, and that's when Alabama coach Nick Saban learned of the decision, per Rapoport.

Continue the discussion at

34 more replies


Avatar for system1 Avatar for silas1898 Avatar for meri Avatar for leftflank Avatar for dave48 Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for voreason Avatar for labman57 Avatar for chuck_voellinger Avatar for jkrogman Avatar for midnight_rambler Avatar for theghostofeustacetilley Avatar for richardnixonhuberthumphrey Avatar for quax Avatar for 538liberal Avatar for dickweed Avatar for darrtown Avatar for pshah Avatar for beattycat Avatar for longmire55 Avatar for an_american Avatar for canary02 Avatar for bedabi

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: