preview

Utah V. Illinois Detective Fackrell

Better Essays
UTAH v. STRIEFF
Reading over UTAH v. STRIEFF I will expound on some facts of the case that impacted some of the decision making in police administration. Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell was surveilling a South Salt Lake City residence due to the anonymous tip on suspicious drug activity. Based on his surveillance he determined that the resident was drug dealing. Detective Fackrell saw Strieff leaving the residence. He identified and detained Strieff to answer questions about what was going on inside the house. He ran a check and discovered he had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Detective Fackrell searched him and found little baggies of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia only minutes after the illegal
…show more content…
Assuming but not determining Detective Fackrell did not have enough grounds to stop Strieff at first, but when he was made known of the arrest warrant; it attenuated the connection with the unlawful stop and the evidence detained from Strieff incident to his arrest. He discovered the drugs only in the minutes after his illegal stop. Although he had a valid warrant, it had nothing to do with the discovery of evidence. The warrant only allowed Detective Fackrell to arrest Strieff, but his search of Strieff’s incident to that arrest was considered lawful. The detective was careless in nature and called his judgment to be questioned. Did he violate Strieff’s Fourth Amendment rights? Although his conducted an unlawful stop, his conduct was lawful, and there are no signs that the stop was part of any systemic or police misconduct. At this point, Detective Fackrell’s judgment should not constitute a warrant suppression. He was not there just to poke at Shierff. He was there to gather information about his investigation. Strieff says otherwise due to the absence of probable cause.
The court determined a baseline or how they were going to exclude evidence based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Dismissal is only necessary when the benefits outweigh its costs. The exclusionary rule is very vital in determining if the police officer’s conduct was unlawful. By excluding the illegally obtained evidence, courts minimized the temptation of the
Get Access