The issue of this case is boiled down simply by the court: "[W]hether having lawfully detained [a suspect] on suspicion of impaired driving, the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by opening the car door."
A concerned citizen had called in a DUI crash in a parking lot. The citizen informant had reported that a driver had fell asleep and then hit a light pole. He woke up, began to back out, and fell asleep again. Officer arrived and parked his patrol car behind the suspect's car, essentially blocking him from backing out any further or moving anywhere. Officer observed suspect slumped and slouched over in the driver's seat unconscious. Officer opened the door to check on the suspect, and suspect awoke. Officer observed drug paraphernalia on the floor between suspect's feet when he opened the door. Suspect made admissions about taking narcotics, showed many indications of impairment on SFSTs, and was arrested for DUI. Suspect also ended up being charged for possession of heroin that was discovered in a search incident to arrest.
Defendant argued that the opening of the door of the car was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant argued that officer should have knocked on the window first to determine if this was a true emergency that required the officer opening the door. The State argued and the District Court agreed that this was permissible under the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, and the motion to suppress was denied.
The Court of Appeals did not reach a decision whether the emergency aid exception applied here. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order on the basis that opening the car door was a permissible act under a lawful Terry stop, and therefore no warrant would be required.
In citing State v James, 2000 UT 80, the Court of Appeals articulated that opening a door as part of a lawful Terry stop to investigate the driver is not akin to opening a door to investigate the vehicle, and therefore, the additional step of obtaining a warrant is not necessary. In James, the opening of a door as part of a lawful detention to investigate the driver himself was an incidental factor in the investigation of the driver's impaired condition. This seemed to be the important designation of the case. Because the officer was investigating the driver and not searching the car itself for evidence, the opening of the door was not a Fourth Amendment violation and an incidental factor in the otherwise lawful investigation.
You can find the case here if you'd like to read it: State v. Malloy
A concerned citizen had called in a DUI crash in a parking lot. The citizen informant had reported that a driver had fell asleep and then hit a light pole. He woke up, began to back out, and fell asleep again. Officer arrived and parked his patrol car behind the suspect's car, essentially blocking him from backing out any further or moving anywhere. Officer observed suspect slumped and slouched over in the driver's seat unconscious. Officer opened the door to check on the suspect, and suspect awoke. Officer observed drug paraphernalia on the floor between suspect's feet when he opened the door. Suspect made admissions about taking narcotics, showed many indications of impairment on SFSTs, and was arrested for DUI. Suspect also ended up being charged for possession of heroin that was discovered in a search incident to arrest.
Defendant argued that the opening of the door of the car was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant argued that officer should have knocked on the window first to determine if this was a true emergency that required the officer opening the door. The State argued and the District Court agreed that this was permissible under the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement, and the motion to suppress was denied.
The Court of Appeals did not reach a decision whether the emergency aid exception applied here. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order on the basis that opening the car door was a permissible act under a lawful Terry stop, and therefore no warrant would be required.
In citing State v James, 2000 UT 80, the Court of Appeals articulated that opening a door as part of a lawful Terry stop to investigate the driver is not akin to opening a door to investigate the vehicle, and therefore, the additional step of obtaining a warrant is not necessary. In James, the opening of a door as part of a lawful detention to investigate the driver himself was an incidental factor in the investigation of the driver's impaired condition. This seemed to be the important designation of the case. Because the officer was investigating the driver and not searching the car itself for evidence, the opening of the door was not a Fourth Amendment violation and an incidental factor in the otherwise lawful investigation.
You can find the case here if you'd like to read it: State v. Malloy
