Docket nos. 14–1373 Argument Oral argument Dates 22 Feb 2016 – 20 Jun 2016 Location United States of America | Citations 579 U.S. ___ (more) Opinion announcement Opinion announcement Date decided June 20, 2016 Date argued February 22, 2016 | |
 | ||
Full case name Utah, Petitioner v. Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. Prior history On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah Similar Birchfield v North Dakota, Mapp v Ohio, Terry v Ohio, Foster v Chatman, United States v Leon | ||
Utah v strieff oral argument february 22 2016
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.
Contents
Background
In December 2006, South Salt Lake, Utah police began surveilling a suspected drug house. Police observed Edward Strieff leaving the house although they had not observed him entering it. 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. Officers conducted a search incident to his arrest, and discovered that Strieff was in possession of drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine. 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." 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.
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." 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. 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".