[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
After receiving an anonymous tip concerning narcotics activity at a particular house, a police officer conducted surveillance. During this time, the officer saw numerous visitors arrive at the house and then depart after being there for only a few minutes. Based on these observations, the officer believed the occupants of the house were dealing drugs. When one of the visitors, later identified as Strieff, exited the house, the officer detained Strieff and asked him what he was doing at the house. During the stop, the officer requested Strieffโs identification and conducted a record check through his dispatcher. The dispatcher told the officer that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. The officer arrested Strieff, and during the search incident to arrest found a bag of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Even though the prosecutor conceded the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff, he argued the evidence seized from Strieff should not be suppressed because the existence of the valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband.
Whether the discovery of a valid arrest warrant was a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the drug-related evidence seized by the officer.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the evidence seized from Strieff was admissible because the unlawful stop was sufficiently attenuated by the pre-existing arrest warrant.
The attenuation doctrine provides that evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote, or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that โthe interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated,โ (the right to be free from unreasonable seizures) โwould not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.โ
First, the Court determined the short amount of time between the unlawful stop and the search favored suppressing the evidence, as the officer discovered the contraband on Strieffโs person only minutes after the stop.
Second, the Court held the officerโs discovery of the valid arrest warrant was a critical intervening circumstance that was completely independent of the unlawful stop, which favored the State.
Finally, the Court found that the officerโs unlawful stop of Strieff was, at most, negligent, and not a flagrant act of police misconduct.
579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved