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

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

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.