Cops in the US and Canada need a reason to stop a vehicle. Not only that, the Cops know this. Therefore, there would have been a stated reason that the cops gave for hauling this character over. And the cops either provided a really really stupid reason that was unbelievable on the face of it, or had a secret reason based on an informan they didn't want to give away, or something else happened. Cops can be brilliant liars in justifying their actions, so if they didn't have a believable lie they were either bigoted, stupid, or obviously flouting the judiciary. And the judiciary didn't want to appear to inept as to let this lie.

I've been watching the testimony in US Congress toward the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, and yesterday morning they specifically brought up a case she was involved in judging where mistakes were made in a police search or on a warrant. She had held in a majoriy opinion that innocent mistakes in procedures or paperwork that are not primary in the finding of evidence do not result in abandoning the fruits of said searches (i.e. evidence).

So this short article that is linked to is inadequate in explaining what the judges actually decided and why they decided it. This article is pretty much useless except as a source of raising blood pressure. Judges are not hopheads and my inclination is to believe they would not be letting this guy off without some egregious behavior on the part of the cops.