Did the Supreme Court Just Effectively Gut the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule?

[AUDub 11,424]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I listened to a brief NPR segment on it yesterday. It is a bizarre and troubling ruling.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

The police had every right to stop this guy if he did something wrong after leaving the drug dealing house such as run a stop sign, broken tail light, etc. Stopping a car for no reason is unconstitutional though. The police doesn't have the right to stop every car that leaves a suspected drug dealers house.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

I don't find myself siding with Sotomayor (much less Ginsburg) often. I can't remember the last prominent case where I did (maybe Citizens United?). But she's right on this. It's a terrible undermining of 4th Amendment principles and one that conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about if a similar gutting of the 2nd Amendment were put into effect by the SCOTUS.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

I don't find myself siding with Sotomayor (much less Ginsburg) often. I can't remember the last prominent case where I did (maybe Citizens United?). But she's right on this. It's a terrible undermining of 4th Amendment principles and one that conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about if a similar gutting of the 2nd Amendment were put into effect by the SCOTUS.

Well, not surprisingly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

I don't find myself siding with Sotomayor (much less Ginsburg) often. I can't remember the last prominent case where I did (maybe Citizens United?). But she's right on this. It's a terrible undermining of 4th Amendment principles and one that conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about if a similar gutting of the 2nd Amendment were put into effect by the SCOTUS.

Well, not surprisingly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But you don't really explain why. If you disagree, explain where Sotomayor's reasoning and examples are wrong. Just saying "I disagree" isn't a response. I mean, I guess it technically is, but it's not one worthy of consideration by others.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

I don't find myself siding with Sotomayor (much less Ginsburg) often. I can't remember the last prominent case where I did (maybe Citizens United?). But she's right on this. It's a terrible undermining of 4th Amendment principles and one that conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about if a similar gutting of the 2nd Amendment were put into effect by the SCOTUS.

Well, not surprisingly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You are disagreeing with the constitution. Please STFU about the second amendment if you don't think all amendments should apply.

[AUUSN 823]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

I don't find myself siding with Sotomayor (much less Ginsburg) often. I can't remember the last prominent case where I did (maybe Citizens United?). But she's right on this. It's a terrible undermining of 4th Amendment principles and one that conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about if a similar gutting of the 2nd Amendment were put into effect by the SCOTUS.

Bingo. They would give up all rights just as lo g as the 2nd amendment is left alone. Look no further than the patriot act.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

I don't find myself siding with Sotomayor (much less Ginsburg) often. I can't remember the last prominent case where I did (maybe Citizens United?). But she's right on this. It's a terrible undermining of 4th Amendment principles and one that conservatives would be screaming bloody murder about if a similar gutting of the 2nd Amendment were put into effect by the SCOTUS.

Well, not surprisingly, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But you don't really explain why. If you disagree, explain where Sotomayor's reasoning and examples are wrong. Just saying "I disagree" isn't a response. I mean, I guess it technically is, but it's not one worthy of consideration by others.

IMO the officer had sufficient probable cause and 5 US Supreme Court Justices agree. I formed my own opinion based on the case so I have no need to rebut Sotomayor's dissent.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

IMO the officer had sufficient probable cause and 5 US Supreme Court Justices agree.

You didn't read the ruling, did you?

[AUDub 11,424]

IMO the officer had sufficient probable cause and 5 US Supreme Court Justices agree.

You didn't read the ruling, did you?

As if you have to ask. :-\

The mental gymnastics in the majority ruling simply boggle the mind.

[AuburnNTexas 7,246]

I agree with Sotomayer on this. The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual rights. Whether to protect us from illegal search and seizure or to allow us to bear arms. Government always takes away individual rights with the argument that they are protecting us.

[TheBlueVue 177]

IMO the officer had sufficient probable cause and 5 US Supreme Court Justices agree.

You didn't read the ruling, did you?

I read the particulars of the case and I am of the opinion the officer had sufficient probable cause. You disagree and that's fine but I wont be badgering you to explain why you disagree because I really dont care enough to bother. My opinion seems to be consistent with the majority of the court. Its not a surprise that a liberal justice would write a lengthy dissent and make some good points but this is not a case that an equivalency to the 2nd amendment can be drawn because the defendant was breaking the law. Its not legal to hold methamphetamine period and as it turned out it just wasn't his lucky day. If he had been stopped for no reason, I would feel differently but he wasn't. He was frequenting a house that was under suspicion for carrying on drug related activity and he came out if it and was holding. Sh*t happens when you break the law. Its seems a bit odd, to me, that we have a 5 -3 ruling and I'm expected to explain why I agree with it.

[AUDub 11,424]

Blue, the majority found the stop unconstitutional. The question is whether the evidence obtained in the course of the illegal stop should have been admitted into evidence. It should not. It's fruit of the poisonous tree. This ruling undoes years of precedent.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I read the particulars of the case and I am of the opinion the officer had sufficient probable cause.

You either didn't read it, or you failed to understand what you read, because not even the majority opinion held that the stop was based on probable cause. From Clarence Thomas:

While the court held that the initial stop was unconstitutional, due to lack of reasonable suspicion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that overturned the Utah Supreme Court and held that because the arrest warrant was valid, the evidence was admissible.

Thomas portrayed the incident as the result of a couple "at most negligent" mistakes on the part of the officer, and downplayed its broader significance.

"There is no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct," he wrote. "To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that the stop was an isolated instance of negligence that occurred in connection with a bona fide investigation of a suspected drug house."

http://www.cnn.com/2...ieff/index.html

This case was not, in any way, about whether there was probable cause for the stop in question. Even the majority acknowledged that the stop was unconstitutional. Try again.

You disagree and that's fine but I wont be badgering you to explain why you disagree because I really dont care enough to bother. My opinion seems to be consistent with the majority of the court. Its not a surprise that a liberal justice would write a lengthy dissent and make some good points but this is not a case that an equivalency to the 2nd amendment can be drawn because the defendant was breaking the law. Its not legal to hold methamphetamine period and as it turned out it just wasn't his lucky day. If he had been stopped for no reason, I would feel differently but he wasn't. He was frequenting a house that was under suspicion for carrying on drug related activity and he came out if it and was holding. Sh*t happens when you break the law.

Because this is not a matter of opinion. It's a issue of fact. So all this gobbledygook you typed above is meaningless.

Its seems a bit odd, to me, that we have a 5 -3 ruling and I'm expected to explain why I agree with it.

The OP linked to Sotomayor's dissent. You expressed disagreement with her characterization of what this ruling did, but never really explained why. Then when you attempted to explain, you demonstrated that you don't have any idea what this case was actually about.

[AU4life1 5]

You can thank the Patriot Act for this. The congress pretty much threw the constitution out with that act.

[aujeff11 6,243]

You can thank the Patriot Act for this. The congress pretty much threw the constitution out with that act.

+1

[aujeff11 6,243]

What the heck was Justice Breyer thinking? I thought he was more liberal than that.

[AUDub 11,424]

What the heck was Justice Breyer thinking? I thought he was more liberal than that.

Look up his recent history on Fourth Amendment cases. He sides with the state more often than not.

[aubearcat 2,146]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

The police had every right to stop this guy if he did something wrong after leaving the drug dealing house such as run a stop sign, broken tail light, etc. Stopping a car for no reason is unconstitutional though. The police doesn't have the right to stop every car that leaves a suspected drug dealers house.

In Alabama it is legal to stop a car without a traffic violation as long as reasonable suspicion exist. Example, car pulls into known drug house and maybe the driver goes in for a really short period of time and leaves. Or, maybe a known drug dealer comes out of the house and has a short interaction with the occupants. In both instances, I would assert that reasonable suspicion exists for a traffic stop which is all that is necessary for a traffic stop, reasonable suspicion. Also, Alabama is a pre textual stop state as well.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

The police had every right to stop this guy if he did something wrong after leaving the drug dealing house such as run a stop sign, broken tail light, etc. Stopping a car for no reason is unconstitutional though. The police doesn't have the right to stop every car that leaves a suspected drug dealers house.

In Alabama it is legal to stop a car without a traffic violation as long as reasonable suspicion exist. Example, car pulls into known drug house and maybe the driver goes in for a really short period of time and leaves. Or, maybe a known drug dealer comes out of the house and has a short interaction with the occupants. In both instances, I would assert that reasonable suspicion exists for a traffic stop which is all that is necessary for a traffic stop, reasonable suspicion. Also, Alabama is a pre textual stop state as well.

I knew Alabama was a pretextual stop state. Reasonable suspicion is ridiculous though. Threshold needs to be probable cause just to help avoid racial profiling and stereotyping. Just because there are visitors at a dealers house, that doesn't mean ALL the visitors are buying, using, or selling drugs. Likewise, just because one lives in the "wrong section of town," that doesn't mean he is probably also a criminal. This type of policing was exactly what Sotomayor was blasting in her dissenting opinion.

[aubearcat 2,146]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

The police had every right to stop this guy if he did something wrong after leaving the drug dealing house such as run a stop sign, broken tail light, etc. Stopping a car for no reason is unconstitutional though. The police doesn't have the right to stop every car that leaves a suspected drug dealers house.

In Alabama it is legal to stop a car without a traffic violation as long as reasonable suspicion exist. Example, car pulls into known drug house and maybe the driver goes in for a really short period of time and leaves. Or, maybe a known drug dealer comes out of the house and has a short interaction with the occupants. In both instances, I would assert that reasonable suspicion exists for a traffic stop which is all that is necessary for a traffic stop, reasonable suspicion. Also, Alabama is a pre textual stop state as well.

I knew Alabama was a pretextual stop state. Reasonable suspicion is ridiculous though. Threshold needs to be probable cause just to help avoid racial profiling and stereotyping. Just because there are visitors at a dealers house, that doesn't mean ALL the visitors are buying, using, or selling drugs. Likewise, just because one lives in the "wrong section of town," that doesn't mean he is probably also a criminal. This type of policing was exactly what Sotomayor was blasting in her dissenting opinion.

Probable cause is to high because that's what arrest, search warrants and such are based on which is far more invasive than a traffic stop. As long as the officers stay within the scope of the stop, those who are visiting the "trap" will get nothing more than told why they were stopped. Quite honestly though, trap houses normally don't have average Joe coming by for a casual visit, or at least that hasn't been my experience while working in a multi jurisdictional task force.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

The police had every right to stop this guy if he did something wrong after leaving the drug dealing house such as run a stop sign, broken tail light, etc. Stopping a car for no reason is unconstitutional though. The police doesn't have the right to stop every car that leaves a suspected drug dealers house.

In Alabama it is legal to stop a car without a traffic violation as long as reasonable suspicion exist. Example, car pulls into known drug house and maybe the driver goes in for a really short period of time and leaves. Or, maybe a known drug dealer comes out of the house and has a short interaction with the occupants. In both instances, I would assert that reasonable suspicion exists for a traffic stop which is all that is necessary for a traffic stop, reasonable suspicion. Also, Alabama is a pre textual stop state as well.

I knew Alabama was a pretextual stop state. Reasonable suspicion is ridiculous though. Threshold needs to be probable cause just to help avoid racial profiling and stereotyping. Just because there are visitors at a dealers house, that doesn't mean ALL the visitors are buying, using, or selling drugs. Likewise, just because one lives in the "wrong section of town," that doesn't mean he is probably also a criminal. This type of policing was exactly what Sotomayor was blasting in her dissenting opinion.

Probable cause is to high because that's what arrest, search warrants and such are based on which is far more invasive than a traffic stop. As long as the officers stay within the scope of the stop, those who are visiting the "trap" will get nothing more than told why they were stopped. Quite honestly though, trap houses normally don't have average Joe coming by for a casual visit, or at least that hasn't been my experience while working in a multi jurisdictional task force.

I don't remember the case but I believe the SCOTUS decided that being stopped is considered being seized temporarily which is by itself invasive enough, not to mention reasonable suspicion is also the legal threshold necessary to stop and frisk the suspects for weapons as well, that too is invasive enough. I'm not sure what these "traps" are but I can assure you this I've been in a friends residence plenty of times and he sold weed and he had plenty of visitor, not all smoked or bought any either.

[aubearcat 2,146]

Why yes they did, Fourth Amendment be damned.

Sotomayor's dissent is one for the ages.

By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. 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 of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.

PDF of the ruling. Sotomayor's dissent starts on page 14.

Your assumption that the 4th amendment has been gutted must be based on a very lenient perspective as it relates to probable cause and policing criminal activity. The cautionary tale here is don't make your drug habit conspicuous. The police had every right to search this guy and it never fails to amuse me that those most eager to see stricter gun laws have the most lenient attitude concerning crime and the most restrictive attitude toward law enforcement.

The police had every right to stop this guy if he did something wrong after leaving the drug dealing house such as run a stop sign, broken tail light, etc. Stopping a car for no reason is unconstitutional though. The police doesn't have the right to stop every car that leaves a suspected drug dealers house.

In Alabama it is legal to stop a car without a traffic violation as long as reasonable suspicion exist. Example, car pulls into known drug house and maybe the driver goes in for a really short period of time and leaves. Or, maybe a known drug dealer comes out of the house and has a short interaction with the occupants. In both instances, I would assert that reasonable suspicion exists for a traffic stop which is all that is necessary for a traffic stop, reasonable suspicion. Also, Alabama is a pre textual stop state as well.

I knew Alabama was a pretextual stop state. Reasonable suspicion is ridiculous though. Threshold needs to be probable cause just to help avoid racial profiling and stereotyping. Just because there are visitors at a dealers house, that doesn't mean ALL the visitors are buying, using, or selling drugs. Likewise, just because one lives in the "wrong section of town," that doesn't mean he is probably also a criminal. This type of policing was exactly what Sotomayor was blasting in her dissenting opinion.

Probable cause is to high because that's what arrest, search warrants and such are based on which is far more invasive than a traffic stop. As long as the officers stay within the scope of the stop, those who are visiting the "trap" will get nothing more than told why they were stopped. Quite honestly though, trap houses normally don't have average Joe coming by for a casual visit, or at least that hasn't been my experience while working in a multi jurisdictional task force.

I don't remember the case but I believe the SCOTUS decided that being stopped is considered being seized temporarily which is by itself invasive enough, not to mention reasonable suspicion is also the legal threshold necessary to stop and frisk the suspects for weapons as well, that too is invasive enough. I'm not sure what these "traps" are but I can assure you this I've been in a friends residence plenty of times and he sold weed and he had plenty of visitor, not all smoked or bought any either.

"Trap" is a trap house. A trap house is generally used by the dope dealer to sell his dope and to keep law enforcement from getting to where he lives and or where he stores his money/drugs. And yes, a traffic stop is a detention/seizure because you're not free to leave at any time as you would be in a consensual stop (like if Jonny cop approached you for a field interview but didn't have reasonable suspicion for a detention, you tell him to kick rocks). Being at the friends house that sold marihuana was a sticky situation. Had the house been raided, you'd have more than likely been arrested along with the friend.