Exclusionary Rule In The Utah V. Strieff Case

Protection of the citizens should be a crucial part of its aims in regards to the fourth amendment. According to Crespo, “self-regulation of law enforcement” should be considered the issue of keeping surveillance of public space. Warrantless searches are subject only to few limited exceptions, but other than that it presumptively unreasonable to go ahead with it. According to the Supreme Court, monitoring is acceptable on public grounds, not including the private residence. Therefore, the issue of threshold has been a serious matter ever since. The exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment allows criminal defendants to be in suppression, considering contained evidence in the results of the investigation that violates the amendment itself. The

This rule consists of “illegally obtained evidence only applied when the societal benefits of applying the rule exceed the societal costs”. In the Utah v. Strieff Case, a valid arrest warrant was discovered in such an unconstitutional detention. If there is an invasion of privacy, then the necessity of a warrant is acquired. In December 2006, the police received an anonymous message on a drug tip line about drug activity at a particular Salt Lake City residence. While detained, Strieff provided his identification upon the officer's request. Officer Fackrell called dispatch to run Streiff's ID, which revealed that Strieff had "a small traffic warrant" outstanding. The officer arrested Strieff, and during the search incident to lawful arrest he discovered a bag of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Streiff's pockets. Strieff was charged with unlawful possession of meth and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence as fruit of an unlawful detention. The Utah District Court, Third District, Salt Lake Department, denied Streiff's motion to suppress and his motion to reconsider. The district court based its decision on the three-factor test adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Utah Supreme Court to determine whether evidence obtained from an unlawful police action has been attenuated from the unlawful action. The Brown v. Illinois test requires the court to

There have been several cases taken under the account of protecting citizens from unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court must go with the most rational decision as to whether the public’s line of privacy is invaded. Not everyone gets away with illegal evidence being accounted for against them regarding an investigation done by the FBI for example. The owners and operators of the Los Angeles hotels are Nanjibhai and Ramilaben Patel. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires motel operators to keep records with specified information about their guests. The LAMC also authorizes police officers to inspect hotel records at any time without a search warrant. The Patels filed suit and argued that the provision violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The city of Los Angeles argued that motels are "closely regulated" businesses and are therefore subject to warrantless inspections. The district court determined that motels were not subjected to the same kind of pervasive and regular regulations as other recognized "closely regulated" businesses. Nonetheless, the court held that motels do not have an ownership interest that gives rise to a privacy right in their records because the records were created to comply with the ordinance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed, but later reversed in rehearing en banc.