| Utah v. Strieff | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 2016 Decided June 20, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Utah, Petitioner v. Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. |
| Docket no. | 14-1373 |
| Citations | 579 U.S. 232 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the Utah Supreme Court |
| Procedural | affirming evidence admission, 286 P.3d 317 (Utah Ct. App. 2012), reversing, 357 P.3d 532 (Utah 2015) |
| Holding | |
| The evidence seized incident to arrest is admissible. The officer's discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg (Parts I, II, and III) |
| Dissent | Kagan, joined by Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.[1]
- ^ Utah v. Strieff, No. 14–1373, 579 U.S. 232, 234-45, 239-43, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2059-60, 2062-64 (2016).