In the Case, Utah V

In the case, Utah v. Strieff, the police illegally stopped the defendant as he left a house that was thought to be a drug distribution house. When police checked his identification, it revealed that he had an outstanding warrant for which he was arrested. A search incident to that arrest disclosed that he was in unlawful possession of methamphetamine. When defendant Strieff filed a motion to suppress, the prosecution prevailed because the search was sufficiently attenuated or separated from his illegal arrest. When the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court ruled that:

A) the methamphetamine possessed by a defendant Strieff should have been suppressed because the illegal stop created the ability to find that he had an outstanding warrant that led to the discovery of the recreational pharmaceuticals on his person.
B) the evidence should have been suppressed because the initial arrest was illegal, and derivative evidence seized from illegal stops of persons should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
C) Strieff could not suppress the evidence because his personal rights were not violated when he was illegally stopped by the police officer and so the evidence was properly admitted.
D) the drugs were discovered in a manner that was sufficiently separated from the illegal arrest and therefore, the trial court made a correct decision, despite the original illegal seizure of his person.