This is a win for law enforcement officials who have been compounded in technicalities. Although, it is also a cause for concern and opens the door for abuses of authority and power. 

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court,

To enforce the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” this Court has at times required courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct.

But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression.

The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest.

We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.

Supreme Court weakens the law against unreasonable searches. The “exclusionary rule”: when police obtain evidence of a crime through illegal means, the evidence is usually inadmissible in court.

This rule, an outgrowth of the Fourth Amendment bar on “unreasonable searches and seizures”, deters police from violating citizens’ constitutional rights when undertaking criminal investigations. But the rule just became something closer to a suggestion: on June 20th the Supreme Court divided along gender lines in a 5-3 decision that introduces a loophole in rules for obtaining evidence that were developed more than 50 years ago.

The exclusionary rule has long been contested. Introduced in 1914 for federal prosecutions, it was not applied to all courts until the Supreme Court ruled on Mapp v Ohio 1961. Justice Tom Clark wrote in that case that police would have no incentive to stick to the Fourth Amendment when searching suspects if all the evidence they collect is admissible no matter how they come by it.