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


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



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.