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


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



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.