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


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



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.