Utah v. Strieff

Utah v. Strieff

Argued February 22, 2016
Decided June 20, 2016
Full case name Utah, Petitioner v. Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr.
Docket nos. 14–1373
Citations

579 U.S. ___ (more)

Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
Dissent Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg (parts I, II, III)
Dissent Kagan, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.[1]

Background

In December 2006, South Salt Lake, Utah police began surveilling a suspected drug house.[2] Police observed Edward Strieff leaving the house although they had not observed him entering it.[3] An officer stopped Strieff on the street and conducted an investigatory detention; after asking Strieff for identification, officers discovered that Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation.[2] Officers conducted a search incident to his arrest, and discovered that Strieff was in possession of drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine.[2] At a suppression hearing, prosecutors conceded that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory detention, but argued that the evidence seized during the detention should not be excluded because "the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband."[2] The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible, but the Supreme Court of Utah reversed the trial court's ruling and held that the evidence was inadmissible.[4]

Opinion of the Court

Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the evidence was admissible because "the discovery of a valid arrest warrant was a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of drug-related evidence on Strieff ’s person."[5] Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued the evidence should be inadmissible and that the majority's opinion will "corrode all our civil liberties"; Justice Ginsburg joined all but part IV of Justice Sotomayor's opinion.[6] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined in full, where she argued that the majority's ruling "creates unfortunate incentives for the police".[7]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Utah v. Strieff, No. 14–1373, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056, slip op. at 1, 6-10 (2016).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Strieff, slip op. at 2.
  3. ↑ Strieff, 136 S. Ct at 2060, 2063, 2065.
  4. ↑ Strieff, slip op. at 2-3.
  5. ↑ Strieff, slip op. at 5-9.
  6. ↑ Strieff, slip op. at 1, 12 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  7. ↑
    Strieff, slip op. at 1, 6 (Kagan, J., dissenting).

External links


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/9/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.