We hope that all is well with you and we are looking forward to seeing you at the Atlanta Bar on Wednesday.
We have received a question about the attenuation doctrine as that term is used within the Utah v Strieff opinion. Following is an explanation that we hope will be helpful to you as you work on your essays.
In general, the term attenuated refers to something that has been weakened, reduced, lessened, or decreased in strength or magnitude. The attenuation doctrine comes into play when evidence has been seized as a result of illegal police conduct, but the link between the police misconduct and the discovery of the evidence is weak enough for the court to consider allowing the evidence to be used against the defendant despite the illegal police conduct. When evidence is allowed under this theory, it is allowed pursuant to the attenuation doctrine.
In Utah v Strieff, the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of what to do about a police officer's violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when as it turned out there was also an outstanding warrant for the defendant. Should the evidence be suppressed or not? If the link between the illegal police conduct and the discovery of the evidence is considered weak, the court may find that the attenuation doctrine applies and therefore find that the evidence can be admitted.
