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


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



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.