Or, "Prove to me you haven't committed a crime and MAYBE I'll leave you alone."
Go here and read the full story.
First, the Fourth Amendment reads in part,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
The amendment says that you have a right and that it shall not be violated. On its face, a random stop and search of your person without probable cause is a violation of your right to be secure.
Now we have a US Supreme Court ruling called Utah v. Strieff.
So, the cops are watching a drug house. A fellow comes along and a cop stops and searches him without probable cause. The cop demands ID, finds out the man has a warrant, and finds drugs on him. Now, in the days before this Supreme Court session, everything discovered pursuant to an unlawful stop and search would be inadmissible due to the initial stop being without PC (this is generally the way it is supposed to work).
But, Justice Thomas says,
"...discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized..."
Did you get that?
If the cop finds contraband during his unlawful stop and search it magically becomes not unlawful.
Unconstitutional investigatory stops are A-OK, so long as Officer Friendly finds something on you or you have an outstanding warrant. No probable cause. No fourth amendment required. So, if we have this strait, as you walk down the street, a cop can stop you, search you, demand that you ID yourself, and harass you because he wants to. He no longer needs probable cause at all. If he finds no contraband... well, you can bring suit.
Justice Bryer, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito all agree with Justice Thomas's statement:
"Strieff argues that, because of the prevalence of outstanding arrest warrants in many jurisdictions, police will engage in dragnet searches if the exclusionary rule is not applied. We think that this outcome is unlikely. Such wanton conduct would expose police to civil liability."
If Officer Friendly finds no contraband, you can bring suit. Get butt-hurt over the Officer violating your Fourth Amendment rights? Get over it! What Fourth Amendment? Ha!
I never thought I would agree with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg, but they said the following:
Sotomayor-"Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: 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."
"If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant."
"It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen... but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged,"
Kagan- "The officer’s incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases: From here on, he sees potential advantage in stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion—exactly the temptation the exclusionary rule is supposed to remove..."
Last question: What is the difference between a cop searching your person without probable cause and a cop searching your home without probable cause? Go ahead. Answer silently to yourself.
Now there is to be no such doctrine as "Fruit from the poisonous tree".
But not to worry, the VAST MAJORITY cops are such good guys that this new authority will never be abused... Oh, well, bad guys, sure. But good folks like you? What are you? Paranoid? Just exactly how much privacy do you think you need? You must be in favor of drug dealers and child molesters getting away with it.
Why don't you just keep your mouth shut, your head down and do as you're told, peasant! What do you think you are? A free man?
You know what? Who fuckin cares anymore? Why bother even making the point. We're so done.