CALL 205.538.3340

The Law Office of J.D. Lloyd Logo

AfterTheTrial.com... Because There’s Hope After the Trial

BLOG

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


Background

 

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.

 

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


Tags

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

Archive

DISCLAIMER

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.