A Pretextual Traffic Stop Should Require Sufficient Pretext

Several years ago,Atlanticwriter Conor Friedersdorf asked Twitter“If you could add one Bill of Rights style amendment to the Constitution what would it be?” I responded “The Fourth Amendment and “we mean it.””My answer may have been tongue-in-cheek, but quite seriously, the Fourth Amendment and its protections have been eroded by the Supreme Court precedents over several decades. As a result, the power of the police to intrude upon the lives of individuals has grown and they have taken advantage of that power throughout the country.TheFourth Amendment reads:“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 searched, and the pe rsons or things to be seized.”In plain English, the amendment should mean —among other things—that the police cannot stop (or “seize”) you on the street for no good reason. In the context of traffic stops, the Supreme Court held inWhren v. U.S.(1996) that the police had to have probable cause to believe the driver or vehicle is in violation of a traffic law. In the abstract,Whren makes perfect sense: If an officer observes a moving violation, he or she can stop a driver to address the issue.In practice, however,Whren has provided virtualcarte blanche for police to stop motorists due to innumerable traffic ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs