Twenty-two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), that police with probable cause to suspect a moving violation may stop and seize a motorist, even if the seizure is a pretext to search for evidence of other possible crimes. In this case, the en banc Seventh held, over the dissent of three judges, that a mere parking infraction justifies a pretextual search. The dissenting judges warned that the decision gives police the power to seize people for “parking while black” and that “the police tactics here would never be tolerated in more affluent neighborhoods.”
The MacArthur Justice Center challenged the decision in the United States Supreme Court. A range of individuals and institutions—including the Cato Institute and a group of law professors who specialize in criminal procedure—urged the Court to hear the case. The Court ultimately decided not to hear the case.
The police tactics here would never be tolerated in more affluent neighborhoods. This extension will further erode the Fourth Amendment, trading away privacy rights of some for the hope of more security for others, and stripping those targeted in searches of both security and privacy. We should find that the tactics in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.
CASE DEVELOPMENTS
-
Petition denied —October 1, 2018
-
Reply of petition Randy Johnson filed —July 10, 2018
-
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed —June 25, 2018
-
Brief of amicus curiae the Cato Institute filed —April 25, 2018
-
Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil and Human Rights Clinic filed —April 23, 2018
-
Petition for certiorari filed —March 23, 2018
-
Seventh Circuit en banc decision —October 27, 2017