Claire Fahlman

LSJ 200 AD
October 20, 2016
Reading Response Questions
1. What is the exclusionary doctrine and why is it relevant to this case?
The exclusionary doctrine is a rule derived from the fourth amendment that prevents the
prosecution from using illegally gathered evidence against a defendant. If the evidence is
gathered in a way that violates the constitution, it must be excluded from trial and cannot be
brought up. This is relevant to the case because this case revolves around whether or not the drug
evidence found during an illegal stop can be excluded. The state of Utah argued that it was
gathered legally, while Strieff, the defendant, argued that it was gathered illegally in violation of
the fourth amendment, thus falling under the exclusionary doctrine.
2. What is the attenuation doctrine and why is it relevant to this case?
The attenuation doctrine is a doctrine derived from the fourth amendment which allows
illegally obtained evidence to be introduced into trial if the connection between the illegal search
and the evidence is weak enough. Its an exception of the exclusionary doctrine. It is relevant in
this case because here, Utah argued that the attenuation doctrine applies and should allow them
to introduce the evidence of the meth and the drug paraphernalia. The evidence was found after
an illegal search, but they argue that it was far enough removed that it can be used. Strieff
disagrees, arguing instead that not enough time had passed for the search to have not yielded the
evidence, thus the evidence was found in direct connection to the search in question and should
still be excluded from trial.
3. Why does Justice Thomas think this doctrine justifies Strieffs arrest and conviction?
Justice Thomas and the majority ruled that the evidence should be admissible because the
officers discovery of the warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the
evidence seized incident to arrest. This means that the warrant makes the evidence admissible,
because without it, he would not have searched him and found the evidence. Once the warrant
was discovered, he was duty bound to arrest the suspect, and after the arrest, he had to search
him in order to make sure that both he and the suspect were safe. Although the warrant check
would never have happened without the illegal investigatory stop, once the warrant was found,
Thomas argues that it attenuates the connection enough to render the evidence admissible.
4. What consequences of this decision does Justice Sotomayor fear? Why does she argue,
Respectfully, nothing about this case is isolated?
The consequences to which Justice Sotomayor refers pertain to the fourth amendment. She
sees this case as absolutely wreaking havoc on the amendment: This case 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 also says that it takes away the incentive for officers
to avoid searching citizens without justification, now that illegally obtained evidence can be
used. She argues that this case is not isolated because there are hundreds of thousands of citizens
with outstanding warrants, and because of their commonness, this case will allow many more
people to be detained. It justifies the racialized practice of investigatory stops, illustrated by the
Epp reading to which she refers in her citations.