CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo Because There’s Hope After the Trial


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



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.




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


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



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.