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


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



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.