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


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



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.