Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Did the Supreme Court Narrow the Exclusionary Rule?

8/3/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Gabriel Maliha

​Gabriel Maliha is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania studying criminology.

On June 20th, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Utah Supreme Court in Utah v. Strieff, a case that provided a significant clarification of the exclusionary rule, which prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being admitted into the court. A police detective stopped Edward Strieff when he was seen exiting a suspected “drug house” in order to inquire about activities at the residence. A routine check on the defendant’s name turned up an outstanding arrest warrant for traffic violation, and the detective arrested and searched Strieff and found methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia. While the state admitted that the original stop was illegal, the trial court denied a motion to suppress the drug evidence used to convict the defendant, a move that the state appeals court affirmed. However, the Utah Supreme Court reversed Strieff’s conviction, based on the illegal manner in which the evidence had been obtained. [1] [2] [3]
 
The Supreme Court reflected on three points of inflection in Utah v. Strieff: the police stop, the arrest, and the search. The state had already stipulated that the stop was illegal and that the detective had no legal ground to stop Strieff. But the majority of the court indicated that the detective had an obligation to arrest Strieff once he discovered an outstanding warrant. The fact that the warrant was for a minor violation did not diminish that responsibility. The court also maintained that a search incident to an arrest is unquestionably legal, for the purpose of ensuring officer safety and preventing escape and destruction of evidence, as well as consistent with multiple court precedents. [4] [5].
Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas found that the Utah Supreme Court erred in excluding the evidence used to convict the defendant. This was for several reasons: first, because the illegal police conduct in stopping Strieff did not amount to a “flagrant” and “systemic” violation of the Fourth Amendment, since the detective was pursuing a legitimate investigation of a suspected drug house. And, second, because the discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant against defendant was an unrelated “intervening” event to the original purpose of the stop. However, Justice Sotomayor vociferously dissented, accusing the majority of vitiating the Fourth Amendment and ruling in essence that “a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of Fourth Amendment rights.” Furthermore, she suggested that the majority’s ruling would sanction police stops that “corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives.” [6]
 
The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” [7] [8] Courts have for the most part defined “reasonable” as pursuant to a warrant. However, there are some important exceptions, including witnessed crimes, searches following arrests, safety concerns, contraband in public view smelled or visible to the naked eye, as well as in cases of suspected ongoing destruction of evidence. The courts have also allowed brief detentions by police (so-called “Terry stops”) on less than probable-cause evidence when the police suspect a crime. Furthermore, the courts have upheld the legality of warrantless DUI, border (including “quick look” searches of electronic devices), and TSA checkpoints.
 
The Fourth Amendment underwent little discussion during the process of its ratification and essentially no stated opinions by the Framers exist as how to enforce it. However, there are thousands of documented cases (during the life of the Framers and afterwards) of courts admitting evidence obtained in contravention to the Fourth. And since its enactment, aggrieved parties have remedied violations of the Fourth through civil litigations. The High Court first introduced the exclusionary rule in federal cases in its 1914 decision of Weeks v. United States, while its application to state courts did not occur until 1961 (Mapp v. Ohio). [9] [10]
 
The exclusionary rule is a uniquely American remedy to illegal acquisition of evidence by police. Major court decisions in Australia, Canada, and the European Court of Human Rights have all denied suppression of evidence as a remedy for illegal behavior by police. While foreign law is irrelevant to our constitutional determinations, the approaches of courts in other Western democracies are instructive, especially in pointing out that the Fourth Amendment is silent on exclusion or other remedies. [11]
 
The exclusionary rule has faced opponents over the years. Justice Robert Jackson was famously quoted to have said that the rule “deprives society of its remedy against one lawbreaker because he has been pursued by another.” Its opponents advocate civil litigation, disciplinary action, and in some cases criminal prosecution as sufficient deterrent to law enforcement against violating the Fourth. Proponents suggest that the U.S. experience is borne of historical circumstances and the exclusionary rule proves to be the best incentive for police to follow the law. They further point out a serious concern of jury bias against convicted offenders who are suing police for unlawful searches and seizure, as well as the doubtful ability of convicts and other victims to finance civil litigation. Recent Courts, including the Roberts Court, have refined, narrowed, and clarified the rule in cases such as this one. [12]
 
Both the court’s majority and the dissenters have articulated valid concerns. Police must be deterred from violating the Fourth Amendment, but society’s interest in bringing offenders to justice must also be supported. The court did not exclude the evidence obtained following the illegal stop because it was obtained subsequent to a valid arrest warrant. It did not view the evidence as “the fruit of the poisonous tree.” But at the same time, it chose to apply previous precedent to a new case. In so doing, it did not break new legal ground or narrow in an obvious way—at least not technically—the exclusionary rule, a potential effect of the recent trend of compromise rulings as the Court awaits a ninth justice.
 
 
[1] Kerr, Orin. “Opinion analysis: The exclusionary rule is weakened but it still live.” SCOTUSBlog (June 20, 2016). http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-the-exclusionary-rule-is-weakened-but-it-still-lives.
[2] Kerr, Orin. “Argument analysis: Court closely divided on the exclusionary rule.” SCOTUSBlog (Feb. 22, 2016). http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/argument-analysis-court-closely-divided-on-the-exclusionary-rule.
[3] Kerr,Orin. “Argument preview: Utah v. Strieff and the future of the exclusionary rule.” SCOTUSBlog (Feb. 3, 2016). http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/argument-preview-utah-v-strieff-and-the-future-of-the-exclusionary-rule.
[4] http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/defendants-rights/what-arrest-warrant-means.htm.
[5] UTAH v. STRIEFF, No. 14-1373, 579 U.S._(2016). http://www.Utah v. Strieff - Supreme Court.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] U.S. Const. amend. IV.
[9] Roots, Roger. “The Framers' Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Mounting Evidence.” Nevada Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2014. http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/nlj/vol15/iss1/3.
[10] Liptak, Adam. “U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err.” The New York Times. (July 19, 2008). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.

Photo Credit: Flickr User Mark Fischer

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​