State v. Strieff
286 P.3d 317
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Anonymous tip about drug activity at a South Salt Lake residence; officer conducted three hours of intermittent surveillance over a week.
- Strieff followed by an unmarked-vehicle stop after being seen leaving the house; officer retained Strieff's ID and ran a warrants check.
- Warrants check revealed a small traffic warrant; Strieff was arrested and a search incident to arrest yielded methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and a glass pipe.
- Strieff moved to suppress the methamphetamine and paraphernalia evidence as fruits of an unlawful detention; State conceded the detention was illegal but argued attenuation.
- District court applied attenuation analysis, considering an intervening circumstance—the warrant discovery—and weighed three factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, and purpose/flagrancy.
- Strieff appealed, contending Utah law does not recognize the intervening-circumstances test it used; court affirmed denial of suppression stating attenuation doctrine applied correctly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court applied the correct attenuation test | Strieff argues the court used an intervening-circumstances exception not recognized in Utah law. | The State contends the attenuation framework was properly applied. | Yes; Utah law properly applied attenuation. |
| Role of the warrant as intervening circumstance under Utah attenuation | Warrant discovery cannot be an intervening circumstance that cleanses taint. | Warrant discovery constitutes an intervening circumstance attenuating taint. | Warrant discovery can be an intervening circumstance under attenuation. |
| Balance of attenuation factors (temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose/flagrancy) | Strieff claims factors weigh against attenuation due to close temporal proximity and purposeful misconduct. | District court weighed factors in favor of attenuation; warrant mitigates taint. | District court properly balanced and favored attenuation. |
| Constitutional basis under Utah vs. federal law | Strieff argues for separate analysis under Utah Constitution Article I, Section 14. | Utah court doctrine aligns with federal attenuation framework; no separate state-constitutional deviation shown. | No independent state-constitutional analysis required; federal attenuation framework adopted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court (1963)) (attenuation focus; primary illegality taint must be purged by means sufficiently distinguishable)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (Supreme Court (1975)) (three-part attenuation test; purpose and flagrancy central)
- State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah (1990)) (adoption of attenuation factors; temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose and flagrancy)
- State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380, 253 P.3d 71 (Utah Court of Appeals (2010)) (identifying attenuation factors and their non-dispositive weight)
- State v. Topanotes, 2003 UT 30, 76 P.3d 1159 (Utah Supreme Court (2003)) (intervening circumstances/inevitable discovery context; relevance to attenuation)