Sotomayor Lone Dissenter as Police Powers Increased
Article from Law & Crime by Colin Kalmbacher.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the lone and blistering dissent in an opinion which increased the power of police officers to conduct vehicle stops while diminishing the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
“The majority’s justifications for [the opinion’s] new approach have no foundation in fact or logic,” the left-leaning justice notes.
Stylized as Kansas v. Glover, the 8-1 opinion concerns a man, Charles Glover Jr., whose license plate was run by a Douglas County Sheriff’s deputy for no discernible law enforcement purpose. Running the plate determined that the owner of the vehicle had his driver’s license revoked, so the deputy then pulled Glover over on the assumption that he was the driver.
Sotomayor wrote (emphasis ours):
[T]he majority flips the burden of proof. It permits Kansas police officers to effectuate roadside stops whenever they lack “information negating an inference” that a vehicle’s unlicensed owner is its driver. This has it backwards: The State shoulders the burden to supply the key inference that tethers observation to suspicion. But that is an after-the-fact gloss on [the agreed-to] stipulation. Nowhere in his terse submission did [the sheriff’s deputy] indicate that he had any informed belief about the propensity of unlicensed drivers to operate motor vehicles in the area—let alone that he relied on such a belief in seizing Glover.
Please read the rest of the article at Law & Crime.
Awww, so sorry Sotomayor, that you’re the lone dissident.
Apparently ALL the other 8 can’t match your bright bulb intelligence.
Even if it burnt out years ago.
So in your opinion police trump rights?
What rights? TO hide stuff? They cant prosecute you for bubble gum. But people don’t hide that, do they?
Elvin I believe you mean, dissenter rather than dissident.
Who cares unless you hiding something…..
But if he had a suspended license I would think the vehicle didn’t have insurance. I know in my state I can’t buy insurance for my car without a license so he did have a reason to stop him. You have to know if that person is driving and cops run plates all the time if you haven’t done anything wrong you won’t be stopped. People overreact to everything keep your sh**in order.
Lisa have you considered his wife may also drive the vehicle so it would still be insured? Don’t forget not everyone in America lives in your state. Insurance laws vary greatly from state to state.
The police need to make sure he isn’t driving, people do it all the time. His wife has to realize that when you’re spouse is irresponsible and does something to lose your license then it might effect you too. My daughter was hit head on by one of these people that think they can drive without a license. I would be more mad at my husband than the cop.
I don’t think there is any state that allows you to purchase insurance for a vehicle that you can’t legally drive. The car would have to be in both their names at least but even then would be a problem since he would still have access to the car, so yeah you’re wrong.
I disagree with Sotomayor and agree with the other Justices. Provided a LEO makes a traffic stop in good faith depending on the information he has the stop has generally been found to be valid. Yes the driver was not who the deputy expected. But he had the right to effect the stop to find out. After finding out the driver was not the owner he certainly had a right to find out who the driver was.
once again this empty robe (and empty head) protecting the liberal democratic criminal voting base yesterday, today and tomorrow. Another failure of o-abysmal.
I do not have the full details of the case, nor do you I suspect, only a very brief report from some media outlet, undoubtedly slanted and spun. That being said I incline to believe if the other justices all agree on a decision that the lone dissenter is off on some left field rant of her own.