TKTK
Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion overruling her. Whitehouse.gov

NBC News:

In a so-far-sleepy Supreme Court term, Justice Sonia Sotomayor let loose a scorching dissent in a case involving the Fourth Amendment and police conduct on Monday. The majority opinion, Sotomayor wrote, "says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights."

Sotomayor's dissent is getting a lot of attention because it cites Ta-Nehisi Coates and references the Black Lives Matter movement, but the substance of the case is important to understand for anyone who doesn't want to be searched by police on mere whims:

The case concerns Edward Strieff, who was stopped while leaving a house a police officer was watching on suspicion of drug activity. When the officer discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a minor traffic violation, he searched Strieff and found methamphetamine. The court had to decide whether the drugs found on Strieff could be used as evidence or whether such evidence was disqualified by the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The majority (5-3) opinion, written by Clarence Thomas, upheld the legality and usability of the evidence, even though there's no dispute that the initial stop of Strieff was illegal. Sotomayor, joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, disagreed:

It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct... The Utah Supreme Court correctly decided that Strieff ’s drugs must be ex­cluded because the officer exploited his illegal stop to discover them. The officer found the drugs only after learning of Strieff ’s traffic violation; and he learned of Strieff ’s traffic violation only because he unlawfully stopped Strieff to check his driver’s license... But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don’t make a right... Do not be soothed by the opinion's technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong.

After she establishes this basic constitutional framework, Sotomayor seizes on the majority's claim that the case represented an "isolated" example and absolutely demolishes it, citing Coates, Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow," and the Justice Department's investigation of Ferguson, Missouri to show how institutional racism and everyday police interventions impact millions of brown and black lives.

Sotomayor concludes that the majority ruling "implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged." Read the whole thing.