Exclusionary Rule

In 2016, the Court decided Utah v. Strieff, which held: "When there was no flagrant police misconduct and a police officer discovered a valid, pre-existing, and untainted warrant for an individual’s arrest, evidence seized pursuant to that arrest is admissible even when the police officer’s stop of the individual was unconstitutional, because the discovery of the warrant attenuated the connection between the stop and the evidence." Judgment was a 5-3. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority.

This map goes from Strieff back to Brown v. Illinois. This choice of network anchor was based on this quote from Strieff: "It remains for us to address 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 drug-related evidence on Strieff ’s person. The three factors articulated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975), guide our analysis"

This network thus features cases that develop "exclusionary rule" doctrine in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Please note that the embedded map shows the two-degree network using a Spaeth projection. Click the map to view other options.