Does the existence of an arrest warrant excuse an otherwise unlawful stop? On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Utah v. Strieff, interpreting the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure doctrine, and the exclusionary rule. The 5-3 opinion, written by Justice Thomas, held that evidence obtained from an unlawful police stop of Strieff would not be suppressed because the link between the stop and the evidence’s discovery was “attenuated” by the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff while he was stopped.

The Facts of the Case

In 2006, the police received an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold out of a Salt Lake City residence. Officer Douglas Fackrell observed the house for a week. During his observation, Officer Fackrell improperly stopped and detained Strieff without reasonable cause as he left the house. Officer Fackrell asked for Strieff’s identification and discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff as a result of a prior traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff pursuant to the warrant. After the arrest, Strieff was found to be in possession of methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia. Strieff was subsequently charged with drug-related offenses.

Strieff’s Argument About the Arrest Warrant

Strieff argued that the drug evidence should be suppressed because Officer Fackrell had no reasonable suspicion to stop him upon exiting the house. The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in trial. Strieff argued that the drugs were found during an illegal stop, and as a result, the evidence should be suppressed. The Utah State Supreme Court agreed with Strieff.

The State’s Argument About the Arrest Warrant

Utah admitted that the initial stop was illegal. However, the state argued that the exclusionary rule was not applicable because the existence of the arrest warrant was an “attenuating” event. Simply stated, Utah argued that while the original stop was unreasonable and illegal, the existence of the arrest warrant broke the illegality of the stop. Once arrested pursuant to the outstanding warrant, the discovery of the drugs was a permissible search incident to the arrest.

The Decision

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that if an officer makes an illegal stop and then discovers an arrest warrant, the stop and its fruit will not be excluded in court, absent “flagrant police misconduct”.

“In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’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,” Justice Thomas opined. “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,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Justice Sotomayor, dissenting, wrote:

It is tempting in a case like this, where illegal conduct by an officer uncovers illegal conduct by a civilian, to forgive the officer. After all, his instincts, although unconstitutional, were correct. But a basic principle lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment: Two wrongs don’t make a right. When “lawless police conduct” uncovers evidence of lawless civilian conduct, this Court has long required later criminal trials to exclude the illegally obtained evidence….
When courts admit only lawfully obtained evidence, they encourage “those who formulate law enforcement polices, and the officers who implement them, to incorporate Fourth Amendment ideals into their value system.” But when courts admit illegally obtained evidence as well, they reward “manifest neglect if not an open defiance of the prohibitions of the Constitution.”

Justice Thomas disagreed with the dissent, writing “Strieff argues that, because of the prevalence of outstanding arrest warrants in many jurisdictions, police will engage in dragnet searches if the exclusionary rule is not applied. We think that this outcome is unlikely. Such wanton conduct would expose police to civil liability.”

What You Need to Know

Law enforcement officers have a demanding and difficult job, often requiring officers to make split second decisions. The facts of this case did not require a split second decision. Unfortunately, this decision broadly expands the power of law enforcement officials to make an unconstitutional stop and search. In essence, the Court seems to be saying that sometimes the ends do justify the means. Defense counsel will need to be vigilant in analyzing these issues in cases where a potential illegal search occurred. Our experienced criminal defense lawyers will conduct an extensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding your arrest in order to determine if the officer acted improperly.

If you need legal assistance, or for further information about criminal law, please contact us or call Kennedy, Kennedy, Robbins & Yarbro, LC, at (573)686-2459.