This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Constitutional Law,
Criminal,
U.S. Supreme Court

Jul. 7, 2016

Doctrinal synergy

Does 1 + 1 = 3? In math, never. In the law, sometimes. A case in point is Utah v. Strieff.

2nd Appellate District, Division 2

Brian M. Hoffstadt

Associate Justice
California Court of Appeal

UCLA School of Law, 1995

See more...

Does 1 + 1 = 3? In math, never. In the law, sometimes.

A case in point is Utah v. Strieff, 2016 DJDAR 5919 (June 20, 2016). There, a police officer illegally detained Edward Strieff outside of a suspected drug house, learned he had an outstanding traffic warrant, arrested him, and found methamphetamine on him during a search incident to that arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case to decide whether the drugs were subject to suppression as the "fruit" o...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up