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


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



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.