State v. Taylor - The Importance of Credibility Findings

The Utah Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in State v. Taylor pertaining to a pretext stop and consent search of the vehicle where the case turned on the trial court's finding that the officer's testimony was credible. See the summary below, including a link to the full opinion at the bottom.

________________________________________________________________________________

An officer matched the description of a vehicle with information provided by a confidential informant indicating that the suspect would be transporting methamphetamine. The officer followed Taylor until he observed Taylor commit a traffic violation, which was following too close. The officer admitted that this was a pretext stop designed to give him an opportunity to follow up on the informant's tip. Two other officers arrived on the scene after hearing about the stop over the radio, and while the initial officer was running Taylor's information, one of the officers asked Taylor if they could search his vehicle, and Taylor consented. During the search, the officers discovered a glass pipe with burn residue on it, clear plastic bags, and a digital scale. Taylor was arrested and transported to jail. The officers later discovered that Taylor had stashed a bag of meth in the police car on the way to the jail.

Taylor filed a motion contesting the stop, saying that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The District Court held that the officer's testimony that Taylor was following too closely was credible, and therefore the stop was proper. There was an outstanding issue of whether pretext stops were legal, but the defense conceded that they were so long as there was a legally valid reason for the stop, such as a moving violation. Taylor was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and possession of paraphernalia, and he appealed.

Taylor made the following arguments to the Court of Appeals: 1- The stop violated the 4th Amendment because the officer "fabricated" the reason for the stop; 2- The police request to search his vehicle broadened the scope of the stop and violated the 4th Amendment; and 3- Trial counsel was ineffective. (This summary will only cover the first two arguments.)

Taylor's first argument was that the officer in the case fabricated the reason for the stop, or in other words, the officer lied. To support this argument, Taylor cited “an officer’s subjective suspicions unrelated to the traffic violation for which he or she stops a defendant can be used by defense counsel to show that the officer fabricated the violation.” State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 (Utah 1994). The Court rejected Taylor's argument that the officer fabricated the reason for the stop, noting that the trial court judge, who was in the best position to determine witness credibility, made a specific finding of credibility. Trial courts get broad deference with regards to credibility, unless the record shows the finding is clearly erroneous. The record did not provide anything to dispute the officer's credibility, and therefore, the Court rejected Taylor's argument that the reason for the stop was fabricated.

Taylor's second argument was that the requests by other officers to search his vehicle while the initial officer was conducting record checks illegally extended the scope of the stop and violated the 4th Amendment. Taylor argued that the officer purposefully delayed issuing the citation to allow the other officers a chance to obtain consent to search the vehicle. The Court held that this allegation was not supported by the record. The record showed that the initial officer took approximately 3-5 minutes to conduct the record check, and the consent to search the vehicle was given during this same time. The initial officer's testimony stated that he did not do anything to delay the records check, and did not speak to the other officers about searching the vehicle during that time. The Court held that the duration of the stop was reasonable and the additional questioning did not measurably extend it. There was no 4th Amendment violation because the consent to search the vehicle was obtained before the original purpose of the stop was completed.

This case illustrates the importance of obtaining credibility findings for our officers at the trial court level when defendants make reasonable suspicion or probable cause challenges.

You can see the entire opinion here: State v. Taylor, 2017 UT App 89

THC Metabolite Prohibition Remains Constitutional - State v. Outzen

You may or may not have been aware that the constitutionality of 41-6a-517, better known as our “DUI metabolite” law, was challenged and argued before the Utah Supreme Court earlier this year. Lance Bastian with the Utah County Attorney’s Office argued this case and got a favorable ruling. The Court affirmed the convictions and upheld the constitutionality of the statute. Please see the summary below, which also has a link to the full opinion. 

Congratulations are in store for Lance. His argument was fantastic and he did a great job getting us a solid ruling on this issue. Well done Lance!

A summary for the case is below. 

_______________________________________________________________________

State v. Outzen, 2017 UT 30. 

Outzen fell asleep while driving his vehicle and caused a crash with another vehicle. The Utah Highway Patrol troopers that responded to the accident made observations that led them to believe that Outzen had recently used marijuana. They observed lack of convergence in defendant’s eyes and a green mucus covering defendant’s tongue. Outzen admitted to being a regular marijuana user and using marijuana the night before. A search of the vehicle resulted in no marijuana or paraphernalia. Troopers conducted SFSTs and concluded that Outzen was not too impaired to drive. Outzen was taken to the UHP office where he submitted breath, blood, and urine samples. The blood result returned positive for THC metabolite. Therefore, this case specifically addresses whether the statutory prohibition of the presence of non-psychoactive THC metabolite is constitutional. The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and ruled that this prohibition does not violate the Utah and United States Constitutions.

Outzen made three principle arguments to the Utah Supreme Court. First, defendant argued that the language contained in 41-6a-517 stating, “In cases not amounting to a violation of 41-6a-502” requires a showing of at least some measure of impairment. Second, defendant argued that 41-6a-517 punishes a status offense and violates the 8^th and 14^th Amendments. Finally, defendant argued that 41-6a-517 violates the Uniform Operation of Laws Provision of the Utah Constitution.

The Court dismissed Outzen’s first argument that some measure of impairment is required to violate 41-6a-517. To adopt this argument would require the Court to overlook the plain language of the statute. There is no statement in 41-6-517 at all regarding impairment, and, in fact, requiring impairment would negate the unambiguous prohibition of “any” amount of a controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance.

The Court also rejected Outzen’s argument that 41-6a-517 punishes a status offense and violates the 8^th and 14^th Amendments. The holding acknowledges that the statute does not criminalize simply having the metabolite of a controlled substance in the body, but requires the additional act of operating or being in actual physical control of a vehicle.

Finally, the Court analyzed the Uniform Operation of Laws provision of the Utah Constitution in relation to 41-6a-517. This required a three-pronged analysis. 1- Does the law create classifications? 2- Do these classifications impose any disparate treatment on persons similarly situated? 3- Does the legislature have any reasonable objective that warrants the disparity? The Court was skeptical that this statute imposes disparate treatment on persons similarly situation, but upheld the statute based upon the legislature’s broad authority to create laws, and the reasonable objectives the legislature had (or could have had) in enacting this law. Specifically, the Court held that the legislature could have passed this bill for the legitimate purposes of deterring illegal drug use and for promoting public safety on our roads. While the legislature may have had other legitimate purposes, these were sufficient under a rational basis review to hold the statute does not violated the Uniform Operations of Law provision of the Utah Constitution. 

You can access the full case through this link: State v. Outzen