Searches of Vehicles Incident to Arrest is Prohibited

Utah v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, (Utah Supreme Court, March 12, 2010).

Baker was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for not having the license plate illuminated.  He entered a conditional plea.  He argued that Police illegally extended the stop to conduct a dog sniff after the arrest of the driver.  Police arrested driver for driving without a license.  Mr. Baker and the other passengers waited in the car until a K9 unit arrived and performed a dog sniff of the vehicle.  The dog alerted on the car door, and police ordered Baker and others out of the car.  Police frisked Baker and found a marijuana pipe.  Later, during booking, police also found a bag of methamphetamine.

Police testified that they did not fear for their safety and that reason for the search because the dog had indicated the presence of drugs.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals suppression of the evidence.  The Court found police illegally prolonged the stop to await the K9 unit.  While there could have been a good faith exception to this violation, Police had no articulable suspicion to justify a Terry frisk of Baker, which uncovered the evidence.  There is no justification allowing police to search as a means of controlling the scene.  Further, any detention after following the resolution of the reason for the stop is illegal; there is not de minimus exception.

Full Decision available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Baker031210.pdf

Good Faith Exception for Pre-Gant Cases

Utah v. Gettling, 2010 UT 17, (Utah Supreme Court, March 12, 2010).

Gettling was a passenger in a car.  Police stopped the car and arrested the driver.  After the arrest, Police prolonged the detention and performed a dog sniff on the car and on Gettling, one of its remaining occupants.  Police found Drugs in Gettlings belongings.  He was convicted of drug related charged.  Gettling appealed and argued that the trial court should have suppressed evidence because police illegally detained him while conducting the dog sniff.

The Utah Supreme Court found the search of Gettling to be illegal, because the dog-sniff prolonged his detainment.  Because the arrest of the driver ended the reason for the stop, Police should have released Gettling.  Instead of releasing him, Police prolonged the detainment and engaged in a dog sniff. 

However, because at the time of the arrest, then effective case law permitted police to engage in a search of the automobile incident to a lawful arrest.  Because suppressing the evidence in this case would not deter police from engaging in illegal searches, the Court affirms the admission of the evidence under a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Gettling031210.pdf

Orange Rinds + Lysol + Armor All (i.e. Masking Odors) = Reasonable Suspicion

State of Utah v. Heather Richards, 2009 UT App. 397, (Utah Court of Appeals, December 31, 2009).
Heather Richards was pulled-over for allegedly crossing over the fog line. When the officer approached the vehicle, he noticed the smell of oranges and air fresheners. After checking Defendant’s license and registration, he returned to the vehicle and noticed the orange rinds, and Armor All and Lysol brand cleaners. He also noticed multiple cell phones. After seeing these items, the officer believed that Defendant might be masking other odors. Defendant refused the officer’s request to search the car. In order to dispel or confirm his suspicions, he called for a drug sniffing canine to do a canine sniff of the vehicle. While performing the canine sniff, the dog signaled on the trunk. The officers opened the trunk and found 40lbs of marijuana.

At trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence alleging that there were insufficient grounds to support the extended detention and the canine sniff. The Trial denied the motion and found that the orange rinds, Armor All, and Lysol were sufficient reasonable suspicion. Defendant appealed.

The Court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s admittance of the evidence, finding that the multiple masking agents and multiple cell phones was sufficient reasonable suspicion to warrant the canine sniff.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/richards123109.pdf