Is a mobile home a home or a car? Is a car parked inside a home part of the home? The answers to these stoner philosophical questions determine the scope of police power. Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has presided over the expansion of police discretionary powers to stop, search, and arrest people through litigation over automobiles. This week, we look at the stories of those decisions, including Carroll v. United States, United States v. Ross, and Whren v. United States. Then, we turn to the political morality of police discretion and why John Rawls’ test of public reason places far more constraints on law enforcement than the Supreme Court ever would. We investigate the consequences of public reason tests for targeted policing and racial profiling as well as consider whether police should have the power to overrule democratically-elected criminal laws. Guest voices include University of Iowa law professor Sara Seo, former Burlington, Vt. chief of police Brandon del Pozo, and archival audio from SCOTUS.
In Slate Plus: Sarah Lustbader, senior contributor to the Appeal and senior legal counsel for the Justice Collaborative, and Barry talk about how to implement the test of public reason for policing. They also discuss how the existing system has judges and prosecutors presume that arrest is the default rightful response to lawbreaking, rather than being a default wrongful response for malum prohibitum crimes.
For all back episodes from Seasons 13 of Hi-Phi Nation, visit www.hiphination.org