US Supreme Court Strikes a Blow to the Fourth Amendment

At this point it seems like they are beating a rotten, decaying, dead horse, but the US supreme court has decided it is necessary to take another whack at the fourth amendment.

The text of the Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The lawyers representing David Lee Moore, a Portsmouth, Virginia resident who was arrested five years ago and charged with the possession of cocaine, knew that text well and thought it would help Moore become a free man. On that night Moore was stopped by Portsmouth officers for driving with a suspended license. Under Virginia law, he should have been issued a court summons and been allowed to leave. Instead, the officers decided, on a whim, to arrest Moore. They detained him for over an hour and the subsequent search revealed that Moore had cocaine in his possesion. When asked why Moore was arrested, an officer replied, "Just our prerogative." Translation: We just felt like arresting him. We had no real reason. At Moore's trial his attorney tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it. The US Supreme Court held up the decision with a unanimous 9-0 vote. Justice Antonin Scalia had this to say about the decision:

When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety

Probable cause? He was driving with a suspended license. Since when was an unarrestable offence probable cause for a search? One weird twist in the case is that if a summons would have been issued, then the incriminating evidence actually would have been dismissed. This means that if the cops would have followed the law the evidence would have been suppressed, but since they did not follow the law the evidence was allowed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote on this absurdity:

Would you explain the logic to saying that when the police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when they comply with state law, it can't

Well that did not stop you from voting in favor of stomping on the Fourth Amendment, did it Mrs. Ginsburg?