Utah v. Strieff: The Gratuitous Expansion of the Attenuation Doctrine

Courtney Watkins

In Utah v. Strieff, the United States Supreme Court assessed whether the prohibition on admitting evidence found through an illegal stop dissipates if the officer makes the stop, finds an outstanding warrant for the person's arrest, and then discovers incriminating evidence. The Court held that the evidence seized by the officer following the unlawful stop was admissible because the discovery of the outstanding warrant “attenuated the connection” between the seizure and the police misconduct. In reaching its judgment, however, the Court incorrectly equated its “intervening circumstances” analysis to that prescribed under the independent source doctrine, ignoring the requirement that the intervening circumstance must be unforeseeable. Furthermore, the Court erred in concluding that the officer's actions were merely negligent, and not “purposeful or flagrant.” This conclusion drastically broadens the attenuation doctrine and ignores the prime purpose of the exclusionary rule: the deterrence of unlawful police conduct. The Court should have weighed the “intervening circumstances” factor and the “purpose and flagrancy” factor in favor of the Respondent, Mr. Strieff, and affirmed the lower court's decision to suppress the incriminating evidence.