Justice Sotomayor's dissent is worth reading. This is a sad, sad case, and she highlights that wonderfully with this statement:
The Department of Justice, Sotomayor writes, “recently reported that in the town of Ferguson, Missouri, with a population of 21,000, 16,000 people had outstanding warrants against them.” That means 76 percent of Ferguson residents have, under the court’s decision, effectively surrendered their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure.
Just an aside, have you listened to Radiolab's spin-off podcast, More Perfect? A program that combines Radiolab's high podcast production quality with forays into landmark Supreme Court decisions. They don't get too into the weeds, it certainly won't replace Supreme Court journalism, but it's really fun stuff. I'm actually kicking myself for not coming up with the idea. I love constitutional law ("applied philosophy") and love explaining the little bit I'm familiar with.
The Court has a pretty spotty record (to put it mildly) on defending human rights (espcially vis. race, which this case certainly smacks of, even if in a subtextual way). They had a decades long hot streak from the mid-1950s until the Roberts court, but that is gone for a while. Even if Garland is confirmed, or if Clinton appoints a reasonable person next year, some of these precedents will last a long time. For example, it's sill valid legal precedent to intern racial minorities during war time. Without an amendment, Citizen's United and it's lesser known bastard child McCutcheon (among other horrible Roberts court decisions) could still be law 70 years from now.
Interestingly, there was a 9-0 opinion just last term that barred officers from accessing cell phones without a warrant. I thought at the time that for as bad as the Court has been, at least they have a commitment to individual liberties (after all, for as absurd as Citizens United was, it was ostensibly about individual rights). Guess I was wrong.