The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Officer Fackrell conducted intermittent surveillance of a home from an anonymous tip related to drug dealing. He observed visitors who left a few minutes after arriving at the house. These visits were sufficiently frequent to raise his suspicion that the occupants were dealing drugs. Officer Fackrell observed D exit the house and walk toward a nearby convenience store. Officer Fackrell detained D, requested D’s identification. A police dispatcher reported D Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell then arrested D pursuant to that warrant. When Officer Fackrell searched D incident to the arrest, he discovered a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. D moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible because it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop but argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband. The trial court agreed with P and admitted the evidence. The court considered the presence of a valid arrest warrant to be an “‘extraordinary intervening circumstance.’” D conditionally pleaded guilty to reduced charges of attempted possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia but reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.