Utah v. Strieff

Last updated

Utah v. Strieff
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 22, 2016
Decided June 20, 2016
Full case nameUtah, Petitioner v. Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr.
Docket no. 14-1373
Citations579 U.S. 232 ( more )
136 S. Ct. 2056; 195 L. Ed. 2d 400
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the Utah Supreme Court
Proceduralaffirming evidence admission, 286 P.3d 317 (Utah Ct. App. 2012), reversing, 357 P.3d 532 (Utah 2015)
Holding
The evidence seized incident to arrest is admissible. The officer's discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
DissentSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg (Parts I, II, and III)
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 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]

Contents

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 admitted the evidence and Strieff then pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal the suppression motion. [4]

In August 2012, the divided Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, but [5] in January 2015 the unanimous Utah Supreme Court reversed in an opinion by Justice Thomas Rex Lee. [6]

Opinion of the Court

Majority opinion

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, by a vote of 5–3. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito, 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." [7] Thomas further wrote: "Although the illegal stop was close in time to Strieff's arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the State. The outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff's arrest is a critical intervening circumstance that is wholly independent of the illegal stop. The discovery of that warrant broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional stop and the discovery of evidence by compelling Officer Fackrell to arrest Strieff. And, it is especially significant that there is no evidence that Officer Fackrell's illegal stop reflected flagrantly unlawful police misconduct." [8]

Dissents

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan wrote dissents. Sotomayor wrote that the evidence should be inadmissible. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined all but part IV of Justice Sotomayor's opinion.

In part IV of Sotomayor's dissent, "writing only for [herself]", she wrote that "it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny ... For generations, black and brown parents have given their children 'the talk'—instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them." She cited Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow and Ta-Nehisi Coates's Between the World and Me . Sotomayor wrote that the case "implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged" and that unlawful stops "corrode all our civil liberties". [9] [10] Her dissent was called "ringing", citing "a canon for modern critiques of mass incarceration". [11] Another writer characterized the dissent as "gripping". [12]

Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined in full. Kagan argued that the majority's ruling "creates unfortunate incentives for the police". [13] She explained: "So long as the target is one of the many millions of people in this country with an outstanding arrest warrant, anything the officer finds in a search is fair game for use in a criminal prosecution. The officer's incentive to violate the Constitution thus increases: From here on, he sees potential advantage in stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion—exactly the temptation the exclusionary rule is supposed to remove. Because the majority thus places Fourth Amendment protections at risk, I respectfully dissent." [14] [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on constitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stop and identify statutes</span> US state laws allowing police to require identification of those suspected of a crime

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify himself or herself, even in these states.

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures. The opinion clarified the plain view doctrine of the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis.

Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.

<i>Florida v. Jardines</i> 2013 United States Supreme Court case

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.

Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case which analyzed whether police officers may extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a search with a trained detection dog. In a 6–3 opinion, the Court held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop. However, the Court remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to determine whether the officer's extension of the traffic stop was independently justified by reasonable suspicion. Some analysts have suggested that the Court's decision to limit police authority was influenced by ongoing protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit original decision: the difference was merely "jurisdictional", and Torres still qualified for the accelerated deportation process described under the INA.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the United States Patent and Trademark Office, when conducting an inter partes review, must make judgement on all patent claims contested by the petitioner.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article Three of the United States Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of class arbitration proceedings. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and held that arbitration on a classwide basis could not be compelled based on the provision’s ambiguous language. The Court relied on its previous decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. which held that class arbitration procedures could not be compelled without indication that the parties to the arbitration had agreed to these procedures.

References

  1. ↑ Utah v. Strieff, No. 14–1373, 579 U.S. 232, 234-45, 239-43, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2059-60, 2062-64 (2016).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Strieff, 579 U.S. at 235-36, 136 S. Ct. at 2059-60.
  3. ↑ Strieff, 597 U.S. at 235, 241, 136 S. Ct at 2060, 2063; Strieff, 597 U.S. at 244, 136 S. Ct. at 2065 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  4. ↑ The Supreme Court, 2015 Term — Leading Cases, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 337 (2016).
  5. ↑ State v. Strieff, 286 P.3d 317, 2012 U.T. App. 245 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
  6. ↑ State v. Strieff, 357 P.3d 532, 2015 U.T. 2 (Utah 2015).
  7. ↑ Strieff, 579 U.S. at 239, 136 S. Ct. at 2061.
  8. 1 2 Waimberg, Joshua. "The Supreme Court's Utah v. Strieff decision and the Fourth Amendment". National Constitution Center . National Constitution Center. Archived from the original on June 23, 2016. Retrieved June 25, 2016.
  9. ↑ "RBG's Mixed Record on Race and Criminal Justice". The Marshall Project. September 23, 2020. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
  10. ↑ Strieff, slip op. at 1, 12 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  11. ↑ Ford, Matt (June 20, 2016). "'You Are Not a Citizen of a Democracy, But the Subject of a Carceral State'". The Atlantic.
  12. ↑ Tyler, Ronald (July 5, 2016). "Utah v. Strieff: A Bad Decision on Policing With a Gripping Dissent by Justice Sotomayor". Stanford Law School.
  13. ↑ Strieff, 579 U.S. at 259, 136 S. Ct. at 2073 (Kagan, J., dissenting).
  14. ↑ Strieff, 579 U.S. at 260, 136 S. Ct. at 2074 (Kagan, J., dissenting)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.