Stop Based on Results of Onboard Computer Database Search – State v. Pitcher

Stop Based on Results of Onboard Computer Database Search – State v. Pitcher

In the recent case of State v. Pitcher, the court considered whether evidence obtained from a traffic stop should be suppressed when the stop was initiated based on an error in a law enforcement database. This case raises important questions about the reliability of law enforcement technology and the potential for violations of constitutional rights.

The case stems from a traffic stop in 2017 when a state trooper pulled over the defendant, Pitcher, for driving with a suspended license. The trooper based this solely on a notification from his onboard computer system indicating Pitcher’s license was suspended. However, it turned out the database was wrong – Pitcher’s license was valid. Nonetheless, during the stop, the trooper smelled marijuana and conducted a vehicle search, finding illegal drugs.

Pitcher argued the evidence should be suppressed because the traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The stop was predicated on incorrect data from the law enforcement database, making it an unlawful stop from the outset.

The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases like Katz v. United States that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable government intrusion. A traffic stop is considered a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, so officers need reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to initiate one. An alert from a law enforcement database could potentially provide reasonable suspicion, but what if the database is wrong, as it was here?

The implications are concerning. As Justice Sotomayor cautioned in a 2016 Supreme Court case about database errors leading to unconstitutional searches, Utah v. Strieff, “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims” of such unconstitutional stops based on database errors. Racial disparities in policing have been well-documented, and reliance on flawed technology exacerbates the problem.

In Pitcher’s case, the state Supreme Court ultimately ruled the stop was unlawful and suppressed the evidence, finding the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion because the database notification was erroneous. The court declined to apply the “good faith exception” to allow the evidence, reasoning the officer had not acted reasonably by relying solely on the database without attempting to confirm its accuracy.

This was the right outcome to protect Fourth Amendment rights, but it still leaves open questions about continued reliance on flawed law enforcement databases. As one analysis of the problem explains, these systems often contain incomplete data or clerical errors leading officers to pull over innocent motorists illegally. Yet officers frequently rely on the databases unquestioningly.

Of course, technology can also be leveraged to improve policing and protect rights when used responsibly. Tools like body cameras provide valuable evidence and accountability. But the Pitcher case reminds us that no technology is foolproof. As databases play an increasing role in criminal justice systems, we must ensure adequate safeguards against complacency, error and abuse.

Police rely on onboard computers during traffic stops for efficiency and officer safety. But efficiency should not come at the cost of rights. Officers must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of database information before conducting invasive seizures like traffic stops. And when errors nonetheless lead to unconstitutional actions, courts should suppress the resulting evidence – as the Pitcher court did – to deter future violations.