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

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

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.