Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
E232006
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.
All labels observed (4)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Utah v. Strieff | 3 |
| Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016) | 2 |
| Strieff was denied suppression of the evidence. | 1 |
| Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights) canonical | 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) ⓘ |
| 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
ⓘ
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 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights) Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject linked to:
Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)
subject linked to:
Police officer conducted an investigatory stop of Strieff without reasonable suspicion.
linked to: Utah v. Strieff (dissent on Fourth Amendment rights)