The Utah Court of Appeals recently released its opinion in State v. Jervis. This case has some great analysis for when reasonable suspicion exists for an investigatory detention. If you have not read it, I suggest you do so as there is great language that is helpful for close calls in cases where the defense is challenging the reason for the stop.
The facts of the case are as follows: A Salt Lake City police officer ("Officer") was patrolling an area he knew to have a high level of criminal activity. This area consisted of a motel adjacent to or near the freeway with other hotel parking lots surrounding it. Officer noticed a Honda Civic parked in the stall furthest away from the motel's available rooms, backed into the stall, with the lone occupant sitting in the driver's seat. Officer noted that there was no front license plate affixed and there were over-sized bolts on the front bumper where the license plate should be attached. Because this was a high crime area, and based upon his training and experience that Honda Civics were a model frequently stolen, combined with there being no front license plate attached, Officer approached the Honda and parked his patrol vehicle at a 45 degree angle in front of the Honda, essentially blocking it from leaving and initiating a stop.
During the stop, Officer noted the front license plate on the floor of the passenger seat. He also ran a records check and found out the driver ("Jervis") had warrants for his arrest. An initial search incident to arrest did not result in any illegal substances, but a subsequent search of the vehicle and Jervis resulted in the discovery of three different controlled substances. Jervis was eventually charged with two class B misdemeanor counts of possession and one count of 3rd degree felony possession. Jervis entered a Sery plea to the felony count of possession after the District Court denied his motion to suppress and appealed. His argument focused upon the issue of no reasonable suspicion for the detention.
The Court of Appeals rejected Jervis's arguments, and affirmed the District Court's decision to deny the motion to suppress. There are a few things that are particularly important in this case.
First, the Court's focus on the standard for reasonable suspicion is helpful in any case where the justification for the stop seems like a close call. The decision mentions multiple times that officers are not required to rule out innocent conduct or establish the likelihood of criminal activity to the point they are required with probable cause. And maybe more importantly, the decision reiterates the principle that reasonable suspicion falls "considerably short" of even the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Next, the decision helps reiterate the point that officers do not actually have to observe a person commit a crime to make an investigatory detention. They only have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred, or is about to occur. In coming to this conclusion, the Court reminds us that common sense rules the day, and reasonable inferences on the officer's part are okay.
Finally, the Court does an analysis based upon the argument that state code prevents and officer making a stop for the lack of a front license plate, since that offense is only a secondary offense under Utah Code. This provision is particularly helpful for other cases, particularly anyone still seeing the GRAMA issue for justifying stops. The Court cites both Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) and State v. Harker, 2010 UT 56, 240 P.3d 780 to reject this claim. These cases essentially hold the principle that states are not allowed to create Fourth Amendment protections via statute. And that while statutes may prevent certain types of arrests, so long as there is probable cause, a defendant may not avail himself of Fourth Amendment protections based upon the statutory provisions alone. Jervis tried arguing that those cases do not apply since this was not a probable cause issue, but a reasonable suspicion issue. The Court of Appeals summarily rejected that argument.
There is some really helpful language in this opinion for reasonable suspicion arguments. You can find the full opinion here: State v. Jervis
Tyson
