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


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



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.