☰ In this section

The Champion

August 2017 , Page 57 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

Search & Seizure Commentary: Moving to Suppress After Utah v. Strieff

By Bridget Krause and Deja Vishny

Read more Search & Seizure columns.

In 2016 the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailed Fourth Amendment protections when it issued its decision in Utah v. Strieff.1 Edward Strieff was leaving a suspected drug house under police surveillance when he was stopped by the police. The police officer requested his identification, ran a warrant check, and arrested him on an outstanding traffic warrant. He found drugs on Strieff’s person when he searched him incident to the arrest.

The Attenuation Doctrine

The government conceded the initial stop was an unlawful Fourth Amendment violation, but nonetheless said the arrest, search, and seizure were lawful by greatly expanding the attenuation doctrine. Under the attenuation doctrine, unlawfully seized evidence can be admitted when the connection between unlawful police conduct and obtaining evidence is either remote in time or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance. Justice Thomas wrote the Court’s opinion. The Court stated that even though there was l

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us