Can the government use evidence obtained from an otherwise illegal detention?

Are there instances when the government can use evidence obtained from an otherwise illegal detention?

Yes. If an officer discovers that you have a warrant after an otherwise illegal detention, that may be enough to allow the government to use any evidence found from this detention.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Utah v. Strieff, your 4th Amendment rights were not violated unless the officer’s misconduct is determined to be egregious.

How did the court come to this decision?

Facts of the case: Police received an anonymous tip about drug activity at a residence in South Salt Lake City. The police department assigned an officer to conduct surveillance of the home and saw individuals making short visits to the house. To test his suspicions that drugs were being sold from the home, the officer detained Edward Strieff and questioned him. The officer then requested Mr. Strieff’s ID and discovered that he had an active warrant for an unrelated charge. The officer arrested him and during the search, found meth. As a result, the State charged and convicted Mr. Strieff with unlawful possession of these substances.

Defense argument: On appeal, Mr. Streiff’s defense attorney argued that the officer violated his client’s 4th Amendment rights when he was illegally detained. As such, the drugs discovered on Mr. Strieff’s person should not be allowed in court.  

Court reasoning: Although the State conceded that the initial detention was illegal, the Supreme Court reasoned that once the officer became aware of Mr. Strieff’s warrant, the illegality of the detention did not matter. At that point, the officer could legally arrest and search Mr. Strieff. This reasoning describes an exception to the 4th Amendment’s exclusionary rule called the “attenuation doctrine.” This doctrine allows evidence to be used in court after illegal police conduct. Using several factors, the Court determined that the attenuation doctrine could be applied in this case because (1) Mr. Strieff’s warrant was issued before the detention and was unconnected to the purpose of the detention, and (2) The officer’s misconduct was not considered egregious.

What you need to know: Individuals with warrants have limited 4th Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution. However, individual States may determine their State Constitutions more broadly and provide broader protections.

Today, it is not enough to simply know your rights; you need to understand how Courts have interpreted those rights in the past to understand how they apply to you today.

To protect your freedom, understand your rights.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016)

Legal Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes and is not legal advice. If you have questions regarding a legal matter, please contact our office for assistance or reach out to an attorney who may be able to help you understand how the law may apply to different circumstances.