Generally, under American law an unreasonable act equates with negligence giving rise to liability for the wrongful conduct. The Fourth Amendment, of course, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, at least until the Supreme Court's distressing decision last week in Utah v. Strieff.
The initial sign of a bad moon rising was the identity of the majority opinion's author, Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case started with an anonymous tip to police about drug trafficking activity going on at a particular residence. Police conducted some surveillance but apparently or presumably not enough to establish probable cause, since no search warrant was sought, although one was not needed and will not in the future be sought given the Court's decision. Police observed Strieff leave the location and stopped him in the parking lot of a nearby convenience store, conducting what is known as an "investigatory stop,", which means detaining an individual to find out who he or she is and what he or she claims to be up to. It was conceded that there were no lawful grounds for this investigatory stop, a stop that requires only a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. So it would seem, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, that there no reasonable basis to make this investigatory stop.
Nevertheless, the stop was made, a warrant check run, which revealed some type of outstanding traffic tickets and warrant, the defendant was arrested and the search incident to his arrest revealed a small quantity of drugs.
The Court reversed the Utah Supreme Court and held that the unconstitutionality of the initial stop could be disregarded because of the fact of the outstanding warrant, which, in turn, allowed an arrest and, in turn, allowed a search incident to arrest.
Part of the court's rationale was that "the stop was an isolated instance of negligence [.]" Nearly all stops of all individuals are isolated instances. This is how the law disappears, by being made meaningless.
Comments