Utah Vs. Strieff Analysis
Utah Vs. Strieff
In June 2016 the ruling of Utah Vs. Strieff impacted the fourth amendment and the United States. In the case, a detective named Douglas Fackrell gets a tip that a resident in Salt Lake City, Utah has been suspected of drug deals. He observed the area and after a while he speculated drug deals were taking place. Fackrell sees Strieff leaving the residence, and stops him for questioning. During the questioning, Fackrell discovered there is an outstanding warrant for Strieff and arrest him. While searching strieff lawfully, he finds methamphetamine and a drug pipe on Strieff. The case was sent to the district court, who ruled that, although Fackrell did not have enough evidence to conduct an investigatory stop, the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia obtained during the lawful search incident to arrest justified the admission of that evidence for trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed and …show more content…
The ruling allows a limitation to be placed upon the exclusionary rule (the rule that allows evidence obtained by the government in violations of a person’s right cannot be used against them in court). It allows police to stop citizens without any reason or motive, ask for identification, look them up and see if they have a warrant. If so arrest them, and if they have something illegal of any kind, it can be used against them. Resulting in them being convicted of not one, but two crimes. In additional, it can result in criminal charges over something so little as a parking ticket. Also, if the person does not have an arrest warrant it would not matter, the officer would get away with violating the fourth amendment. However, it can help reduce illegal activities on the
In June 2016 the ruling of Utah Vs. Strieff impacted the fourth amendment and the United States. In the case, a detective named Douglas Fackrell gets a tip that a resident in Salt Lake City, Utah has been suspected of drug deals. He observed the area and after a while he speculated drug deals were taking place. Fackrell sees Strieff leaving the residence, and stops him for questioning. During the questioning, Fackrell discovered there is an outstanding warrant for Strieff and arrest him. While searching strieff lawfully, he finds methamphetamine and a drug pipe on Strieff. The case was sent to the district court, who ruled that, although Fackrell did not have enough evidence to conduct an investigatory stop, the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia obtained during the lawful search incident to arrest justified the admission of that evidence for trial. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, but the Utah Supreme Court reversed and …show more content…
The ruling allows a limitation to be placed upon the exclusionary rule (the rule that allows evidence obtained by the government in violations of a person’s right cannot be used against them in court). It allows police to stop citizens without any reason or motive, ask for identification, look them up and see if they have a warrant. If so arrest them, and if they have something illegal of any kind, it can be used against them. Resulting in them being convicted of not one, but two crimes. In additional, it can result in criminal charges over something so little as a parking ticket. Also, if the person does not have an arrest warrant it would not matter, the officer would get away with violating the fourth amendment. However, it can help reduce illegal activities on the