Is Sotomayor right?

[Jusme]

Long ago the SCOTUS held that drivers cannot be randomly stopped just to see if they have a driver's license. Checkpoints are lawful because they stop every driver to check for a license or for DWI. If contraband or evidence of a crime were found during an unlawful random traffic stop, then the evidence was inadmissible. In my view, the existence of a warrant should not change the long-standing rule. Now, any driver can be stopped unlawfully and, if there is an outstanding warrant, then the vehicle can be "inventoried" incident to arrest. I fear this is just the first domino to fall.

Chas.

I agree with your first assessment Charles, in that once the stop has been determined to be unlawful, any evidence, even that found incident to arrest by warrant, should be disallowed. I agree that drug dealers etc.. should be taken off of the streets, but this precedent has more far reaching potential consequences than just getting someone like that in jail. JMHO

[NTexCopRetired]

Unless the law has changed in the last ten years, it is not legal to resist an illegal arrest. If nothing else, it is a public safety issue. I read this as an active warrant is valid and can be served regardless of the reason for the contact with the officer. I would think anything found as a result of that arrest would be valid if it pointed to criminal activity. Although officers sometime use their discretion when executing a warrant, especially class "C" offenses, a warrant is a command from the court to bring the person before a magistrate. A warrant typically does not give options or allow for opinions.

I had several occasions where I made a PC stop and discovered the female violator had an outstanding traffic warrant. She also had one or more small children with her. Not a situation where you would execute that particular warrant. A felony warrant (or maybe some Class "A" or SJF violations) would be a different story.

Chas. pointed out that it is only legal (in Texas) use force to resist an illegal arrest if excessive force is being used to effect the arrest.

On the other hand, there have been cases where deadly force has been found justified when police mistakenly knocked down the wrong door...

I think the second instance is not technically an arrest.

There may be case law I am not familiar with but Penal Code - 38.03 states:

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.

[JALLEN]

Long ago the SCOTUS held that drivers cannot be randomly stopped just to see if they have a driver's license. Checkpoints are lawful because they stop every driver to check for a license or for DWI. If contraband or evidence of a crime were found during an unlawful random traffic stop, then the evidence was inadmissible. In my view, the existence of a warrant should not change the long-standing rule. Now, any driver can be stopped unlawfully and, if there is an outstanding warrant, then the vehicle can be "inventoried" incident to arrest. I fear this is just the first domino to fall.

Chas.

The police can execute an outstanding warrant whenever they please, or whenever opportunity presents itself. It is among the many disadvantages of being in the run from the law, so to speak.

Does a person always, often, occasionally or never know there is an outstanding warrant?

Warrants are sometimes issued in error, of course. That is impossible to judge in advance, unfortunately.