Utah Vs Strieff Case Study

Katiana Guerrier
Professor Blount-Hill
Essentials of Criminal Justice – CRJ/SOC 2610
October 7, 2016 A Response to Utah v. Strieff
The case of Utah v. Strieff was a very gripping and compelling case that caught the attention of multiple Justices in the Supreme Court. All but two Justices agreed that the Officer Fackrell actions were justified. In the dissenting of Justice Sotomayor, she pointed out that she didn’t agree with the rest of the other seven Justices opinions and was in fact surprised at the way the Court viewed this prodigious case. Justice Sotomayor did not fail to point all the faults of this case of which Officer Fackrell unlawful stop caused an unlawful search and seizure without any suspicion that

Now, Strieff could have said the word "no" to Officer Fackrell request for his identification but Strieff most likely not knowing his constitutional rights at the time gave the officer his identification. "Not knowing our constitutional rights", the problem with citizens today. Citizens allow officers to have this advantage because of our own selves. Officers can apathetically violate one person’s rights because they don’t expect one person to know our rights the way they know it, the way they recite it, the way they memorized it. Becoming vulnerable to these officers are the outcome of our lack of knowledge of the rights that were given to the citizens of the United States. In this case, Officer Fackrell used this advantage that he had over Strieff a citizen, to put a "check" next to the evidence that he needed for his on-going investigation. The evidence of drug activity going on in the house that he was investigating and seen Strieff coming out of. The evidence that would make his anonymous tip that he received