Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)

E232006

United States Supreme Court case

Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights) is a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court narrowed the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained after an unlawful stop, prompting a forceful dissent warning about the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights) canonical	1
Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016)	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T2085344 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
Context triple: [Sonia Sotomayor, notableCaseInvolvement, Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)]

A. Illinois v. Gates
Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
B. Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
C. Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
D. United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
E. Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
Target entity description: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights) is a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court narrowed the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained after an unlawful stop, prompting a forceful dissent warning about the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

A. Illinois v. Gates
Illinois v. Gates is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether an informant’s tip provides probable cause for issuing a search warrant.
B. Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
C. Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
D. United States v. Leon
United States v. Leon is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases.
E. Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (50)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	criminal procedure ⓘ
citation	579 U.S. 232 ⓘ
concurringOpinionBy	Justice Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ linked to: Sonia Sotomayor
concurringVote	1 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
criticizedFor	expanding police authority to exploit outstanding warrants discovered after unlawful stops ⓘ weakening Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures ⓘ
decisionDate	June 20, 2016 ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy	Justice Elena Kagan ⓘ linked to: Elena Kagan Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ linked to: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justice Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ linked to: Sonia Sotomayor
dissentingVote	3 ⓘ
docketNumber	No. 14-1373 ⓘ
doctrineApplied	attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule ⓘ
factPattern	After arresting Strieff on the warrant, the officer searched him and found drugs and drug paraphernalia. ⓘ During the unlawful stop, the officer learned of an outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff. ⓘ Police officer conducted an investigatory stop of Strieff without reasonable suspicion. ⓘ
fullName	Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016) ⓘ linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
holding	Evidence seized incident to arrest on a valid, pre-existing warrant is admissible even when the warrant is discovered after an unlawful investigatory stop, because the warrant attenuates the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence. ⓘ
impactOnExclusionaryRule	Narrowed the circumstances in which evidence must be suppressed after an unlawful stop. ⓘ
joinedKaganDissent	Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ linked to: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
joinedMajority	Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ linked to: John G. Roberts Jr. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ linked to: Anthony M. Kennedy Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ linked to: Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ linked to: Stephen G. Breyer
joinedSotomayorDissentInPart	Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ linked to: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
jurisdiction	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
kaganDissentTheme	Argued that the majority opinion misapplied the attenuation doctrine and undermined the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule. ⓘ
legalIssue	Fourth Amendment ⓘ linked to: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution attenuation doctrine ⓘ exclusionary rule ⓘ
lowerCourtDisposition	Suppression of evidence affirmed ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ linked to: Clarence Thomas
majorityVote	5 ⓘ
originatingCourt	Utah Supreme Court ⓘ
petitioner	State of Utah ⓘ linked to: Utah
precedentStatus	Binding precedent on federal and state courts regarding attenuation and the exclusionary rule ⓘ
relatedCase	Brown v. Illinois ⓘ Herring v. United States ⓘ Wong Sun v. United States ⓘ
respondent	Edward Joseph Strieff Jr. ⓘ
ruleOfLaw	The discovery of a valid, pre-existing arrest warrant can be a sufficient intervening circumstance to attenuate the taint of an unlawful stop. ⓘ
sotomayorDissentCharacterization	Warned that the decision allows police to stop individuals without cause and then use outstanding warrants to justify searches. ⓘ
sotomayorDissentCitation	Invoked writings by James Baldwin and Michelle Alexander to describe the consequences of the ruling. ⓘ
sotomayorDissentNotableFeature	Discussed the lived experience of police encounters and systemic racial disparities in policing. ⓘ
sotomayorDissentTheme	Erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, particularly for people of color and the poor ⓘ
subjectOf	scholarly criticism on Fourth Amendment erosion and policing practices ⓘ
supremeCourtDisposition	Reversed and remanded ⓘ