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

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

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.