CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

After The Trial Blog

The After The Trial blog presents insights on ongoing and recent trials around the state of Alabama, including weekly criminal law round-ups.

US Supreme Court Update - Utah v. Strieff

J.D. Lloyd - Thursday, June 23, 2016


Background

 

The Salt Lake City PD received an anonymous tip regarding drug activity at a house. A detective watched the house and saw folks coming and leaving after only a short duration. To him, this evidenced drug activity going on inside. The detective observed Strieff leave the house. He followed Strieff and eventually stopped him. The detective asked for Strieff’s ID and found out that Strieff had an outstanding warrant on traffic tickets. He arrested Strieff and searched him as incident to that arrest. Of course, the detective finds meth and meth paraphernalia.

 

After being charged, Strieff moved to suppress the drug evidence on the grounds that the detective illegally detained him. The State conceded that the detective did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff, but argued that the “existence of the warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of contraband.” A lower court affirmed denial of the suppression motion, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed.

 

REVERSED

 

The Court concluded that the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of this evidence because the discovery of the warranted attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional police actions and the discovery of the drugs.

 

Long ago, the Court created the “exclusionary rule” to exclude unlawfully seized evidence, also referred to as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The Court has stressed that it’s to be applied so long as its “deterrence benefits outweigh the societal costs.” There are several exceptions to this rule, one of which is called “attenuation doctrine” which provides that suppression isn’t proper when the connection between the unconstitutional action and the seized evidence is either “remote” or interrupted by some “intervening circumstance.” At question here is the latter concern: was the discovery of a valid warrant an event sufficient to break the chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the drugs.

 

The Court employs a three-part test to answer this question: (1) What is the temporal proximity between the illegal conduct and the discovery of evidence? (2) What are the intervening circumstances?   (3) What was the purpose of the conduct and how flagrant was it?

 

While the Court found that the short time between the constitutional violation and discovery of the evidence favored suppression, the last two facts strongly favored not applying the exclusionary rule. Under the second prong, the existence of a valid warrant was a significant intervening circumstance. Once he discovered it, he was under an obligation to arrest Strieff. With respect to the final prong, the Court didn’t believe the detective’s actions were flagrant or part of “systemic or recurrent police misconduct”: while the initial detention was “at most negligent,” his actions after the stop were “lawful.”

 

The dissents in this case are quite strong. Justice Kagan’s dissent states that this decision effectively invites police to make illegal stop.

 

My Thoughts

 

If you look at this case objectively, the Court’s decision makes sense: if a police officer happens to learn someone has an outstanding valid warrant for their arrest, that officer has the duty to arrest them. If an arrest is made pursuant to a lawful warrant, police may search the arrestee. Thus, the search extends from the valid warrant.

 

But if you look at this case subjectively, the Supreme Court has given police officers leeway to engage in unconstitutional behavior. There’s really no way around it. The Court has told officers who would rather investigate outside the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment, “Hey, we’ve got your back in the borderline cases.” Count me in Justice Kagan’s camp.

 

 

If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.



 


Recent Posts


Tags

drug trafficking, bernard v north dakota arson sentencing law and policy blog summaries Alonzo Ephraim Shonda Walker, car accident assault capital offenses 2016 election, mulga alabama domestic abuse Etowah County Alabama, drug possession, blount county alabama the mannequin challenge towles v state hall v florida apprendi v new jersey springville alabama moving violations stoves v state terell corey mcmullin ake v oklahoma Malone v State strickland v washington moore v texas anniston alabama, serial Guy Terrell Junior making a murderer lauderdale county alabama Dylann Roof state of arizona unlawful manufacturing Donald Trump, steve avery alabama law enforcement agency robberies Kareem Dacar Gaymon christian guitierez levins v state Lucky D Arcade foley alabama drug crimes brendan dassey, steve avery, making a murderer, scotus, netflix underage drinking court of criminal appeal releases dothan alabama mount olive alabama clarence thomas street racing death penalty shelby county Xavier Beasley baltimore city circuit court fake kidnapping, pelham alabama burglary operation crackdown calhoun county alabama florence alabama ex parte briseno scotus abandonment hanceville alabama stanley brent chapman fort payne alabama maryland court of special appeals morgan county alabama prostitution sting theft bailey v us keith v state theft of property Pleasant Grove Alabama drug seizure armed robbery attempted murder mccalla alabama huntsville alabama fraud limestone county alabama CCA update judicial override lamar county warrantless blood draws Easter Kay Ivey brookside alabama illegal gun carry eighth amendment, birmingham alabama domestic violence criminal justice reform, Woods v State Jefferson County Alabama russell calhoun christmas shooting criminal justice ferguson missouri Walker County Alabama rainbow city alabama 28 U.S.C. § 2254 huntsville second amendment LWOP Samuel Alito legende v state lethal injection court systems, campbell v state eric sterling shooting death banville v state pinson alabama West Alabama john earle redfearn IV v state madison alabama edwards v arizona constitutional violations fairfield alabama, heritage christian university mobile alabama blountsville alabama cherokee county alabama Benn v State habeas corpus relief warrior alabama Justice Sotomayor OJ Simpson state of alabama tuscaloosa alabama drug busts identity theft sheffield v state self defense ring v arizona Wesley Adam Whitworth shooting aziz sayyed aiding and abetting kenneth eugene billups dekalb county alabama lethal injection drugs eleventh circuit ruling Thomas Hardiman brady v maryland Sardis Alabama sarah koenig animal cruelty economic growth decatur alabama baldwin county alabama felony assaults editorial fourth amendment alfonso morris greene county alabama negligent homicide boaz alabama netflix st clair county alabama embezzlement capital punishment implied consent Alabaster alabama drug smuggling homicide gadsden alabama mcwilliams v dunn pell city alabama endangerment of a child executions heflin alabama concealed carry dora alabama US Supreme Court Update narcotics investigation Fentanyl Rule 32 npr public assistance fraud adger alabama breaking and entering betton v state peyton pruitt Tommy Arthur utah supreme court road rage forced isolation sixth amendment nathan woods Adamsville alabama Gardendale Alabama marion county death penalty, trussville alabama Stephen Breyer pruitt v state gun control south carolina illegal gambling bessemer alabama utah v strieff Joshua Reese abuse debit card skimming scams Ingmire v State capital murder alabama supreme court operation bullseye home repair fraud cullman alabama battles v state bomb threat eugene lee jones v state fraudulent checks alabama Eutaw Alabama asia mcclain alabama criminal law roundup hoover alabama constitutional law, murder benjamin todd acton oneonta alabama kimberly alabama criminal mischief texas SCOTUS, albertville alabama kidnapping montgomery alabama mike gilotti smith v state sexual assault avondale alabama § 13A-3-23(d) immunity hearing tarrant alabama department of justice § 13A-3-23 OJ Simpson Made in America hoax destructive devices talladega superspeedway gun rights Glaze v State jerry bohannon brian fredick lucas William Pryor minor offenses New York Times Tracie Todd hurst v florida Hillary Clinton, midazolam hurst mandamus adnan syed, Briarwood Presbyterian Church brendan dassey fultondale alabama crime of passion debtor prison court of criminal appeals morris alabama Neil Gorsuch church robberies social media beylund v north dakota homicide rate Mike Hubbard nicholas hawkins abduction drug activity shoplifting department of justice, Marengo County Alabama parole birchfield v north dakota mountain brook alabama

Archive

DISCLAIMER

These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among  other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Get Free Legal Advice  Contact us for a complimentary legal consultation

I am interested in scheduling a free legal consultation and receiving additional information.

Submitting Form...

The server encountered an error.

Thank you, your  entry has been  received.

© 2017 The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd, LLC. All Rights Reserved. |

 

As required by Rule 7.2(e), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.