It was not a good day for criminal defendants recently when the same time the Court released Taylor v. United States, it declared that some illegally-seized evidence is admissible as long as the peace officers acted in good faith.
Facts and Procedural History
The events leading up to Utah v. Strieff took place in South Salt Lake City. A narcotics officer suspected that a local residence was a drug house, even though he had almost no basis for this assessment other than an anonymous tip and a gut feeling that something was amiss. The officer eventually accosted Edward Strieff in a parking lot after Mr. Strieff left the suspect residence. The officer demanded identification and detained Mr. Strieff until a police dispatcher confirmed his identity; when the officer discovered that Mr. Strieff had an outstanding traffic ticket, he arrested him, searched him, and found drugs.
At trial, Mr. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that it was seized after an illegal investigatory stop. The trial judge denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed the conviction, since nothing but “a voluntary act of a defendant’s free will (as in a confession or consent to search)” makes illegally-seized evidence admissible.
Decision
The majority agreed with the trial court and reinstated the conviction. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that there was no “flagrant police misconduct” in the parking lot. In something of an ends-justifying-the-means argument, Justice Thomas added that the underlying warrant was “valid, pre-existing and untainted.” Moreover, Justice Thomas relied on several cases that had carved out exceptions to the rule.
Finally, he used the factors in Brown v. Illinois, which had earlier declared that seemingly unjustified stops were totally illegal. The Brown court allowed the trial judges to consider “temporal proximity. . .the presence of intervening circumstances. . .[and] the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” in reaching their decisions. Although Justice Thomas admitted that the officer was “negligent,” these factors weighed in the State’s favor.
Two Justices filed lengthy and passionate dissents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Court’s decision “allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong.” She later added that “When we condone officers’ use of these devices without adequate cause, we give them reason to target pedestrians in an arbitrary manner.” In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan accused the majority of twisting Brown v. Illinois to suit its own purposes.
Application
The holding in this case is rather similar to 2014’s Heien v. North Carolina, which held that an erroneous or mistaken arrest could hold up in court. There have already been two more anti-defendant criminal procedure decisions this term and a third decision, which involves DUI evidence, just released.
It is tempting to believe that events in Washington, D.C. have little actual bearing on criminal cases in Cook County. But prosecutors read newspapers too, and when they see the Supreme Court issuing a string of pro-prosecutor decisions, they will push the envelope even further during pretrials and trials, because they know that appellate judges will back them up.
Rely on Experienced Attorneys
As the Supreme Court issues more pro-prosecutor decisions, it is more important than ever to have an
©2024 Glasgow & Olsson | Powered and Managed by Marlin Marketing