State v. Strieff
357 P.3d 532
Utah2015Background
- December 2006 tip prompted three-hour surveillance of a South Salt Lake residence for suspected drug activity.
- Strieff, exiting the residence, was detained during a stop he challenges as unlawful.
- Dispatch later revealed Strieff had an outstanding traffic warrant; he was arrested on that warrant.
- Search incident to arrest yielded methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
- Strieff moved to suppress; the district court and court of appeals applied the attenuation doctrine to admit the evidence.
- Utah Supreme Court held attenuation does not apply to outstanding-warrant scenarios and that inevitable discovery governs instead, leading to suppression of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attenuation applies to the discovery of an outstanding warrant. | Strieff argues attenuation should apply as an intervening event. | State argues warrant discovery shows attenuating intervening effect. | Attenuation does not apply; inevitable discovery governs. |
| Whether attenuation is limited to defendant’s independent acts of free will. | Strieff contends the doctrine is broad enough to cover warrant discovery. | State argues attenuation requires independent act by defendant (free will). | Court adopts limit; attenuation requires independent defendant acts. |
| Whether the inevitable discovery exception governs two parallel police actions (unlawful detention and lawful warrant execution). | Strieff would have evidence excluded only if not inevitably discovered. | State argues independent lawful action preserves taint dissipation under inevitable discovery. | Inevitable discovery controls; attenuation is not applicable. |
| What is the proper framing of the attenuation doctrine in this warrant context? | Strieff urges traditional attenuation framework from Brown/Wong Sun. | State urges attenuation as alternative explanation for taint dissipation. | Attenuation tailored to independent acts; not extendable to warrant scenario. |
| Should Utah adopt Brown-style attenuation factors for warrant cases? | Brown factors apply if applicable to warrant context. | Brown factors ill-suited for warrant cases; inevitable discovery preferred. | Utah opts for inevitable discovery over Brown-style attenuation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (attenuation focused on independent acts of free will and taint dissipation)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (three-factor attenuation test; independence and timing of acts)
- Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (U.S. 2003) (confession attenuated where independent of illegal arrest)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery; taint may be overcome by inevitable discovery)
- State v. Topanotes, 2003 UT 30; 76 P.3d 1159 (Utah 2003) (inevitable discovery discussed; warrant context cited in Utah)
- United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 1997) (outstanding warrant treated as an intervening circumstance in attenuation)