deferential clearly erroneous standard in Utah

2003STANDARD OF REVIEW 17 "The factual findings underlying a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence are reviewed under the deferential clearly-erroneous standard, and the legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge's application of the legal standard to the facts." State v. Moreno, 910 P.2d 1245, 1247 (Utah Ct.App.1996).

2001ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶ 9 The issues presented in this appeal are whether the trial court, in denying appellant's motion to suppress, correctly determined that (1) Officer Swensen properly extended the scope of the traffic stop beyond its original purpose and (2) the officer's search of Warren did not violate the Fourth Amendment. ¶ 10 "The factual findings underlying a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence are reviewed under the deferential clearly-erroneous standard, and the legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, with a measure of discretion

2002See, e.g., State v. Peña, 869 P.2d 932, 935-40 (Utah 1994) (discussing why factual issues require the deferential clearly erroneous standard of review and why some mixed questions of law and fact require that some measure of deference be given to the trial court). ¶ 15 Only one of the issues raised on appeal was properly presented to the trial court and thereby preserved for appeal. 2 As a general rule, in order for an appellate court to review contentions of error on appeal, the errors must be objected to or be preserved in the trial court record.

2002See, e.g., State v. Peña, 869 P.2d 932, 935-40 (Utah 1994) (discussing why factual issues require the deferential clearly erroneous standard of review and why some mixed questions of law and fact require that some measure of deference be given to the trial court). ¶ 15 Only one of the issues raised on appeal was properly presented to the trial court and thereby preserved for appeal. [2] As a general rule, in order for an appellate court to review contentions of error on appeal, the errors must be objected to or be preserved in the trial court record.

2015"However, we 'retain[ ] the power to decide whether, as a matter of law, a reasonable [fact finder] could find that an implied contract exists." " Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 401 (Utah 1998)). 16 Contracts implied in fact are "established by conduct." Knight v. Post, 748 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Utah Ct.App.1988).

2008See Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 401 (Utah 1998); Sorenson v. Kennecott-Utah Copper Corp., 873 P.2d 1141, 1144 (Utah Ct.App.1994).

2017See State v. Daniels, 2002 UT 2, ¶ 37 , 40 P.3d 611 (“[Constitutional interpretation presents questions of law.”); Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1254 (Utah 1997) (“The existence of a privilege is a question of law for the court, which we review for correctness[.]”). ‘We .., review a trial court’s findings of fact under the deferential clearly erroneous standard.” Daniels, 2002 UT 2, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 611 . ¶ 16 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from twice “be[ing] subject for the same offence to ... jeopardy of life or limb” and from “be[ing] compelled i

2017See State v. Daniels, 2002 UT 2, ¶ 37 , 40 P.3d 611 (“[Constitutional interpretation presents questions of law.”); Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1254 (Utah 1997) (“The existence of a privilege is a question of law for the court, which we review for correctness[.]”). ‘We .., review a trial court’s findings of fact under the deferential clearly erroneous standard.” Daniels, 2002 UT 2, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 611 . ¶ 16 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from twice “be[ing] subject for the same offence to ... jeopardy of life or limb” and from “be[ing] compelled i

2017See State v. Daniels, 2002 UT 2, ¶ 37 , 40 P.3d 611 (“[Constitutional interpretation presents questions of law.”); Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1254 (Utah 1997) (“The existence of a privilege is a question of law for the court, which we review for correctness[.]”). ‘We .., review a trial court’s findings of fact under the deferential clearly erroneous standard.” Daniels, 2002 UT 2, ¶ 18 , 40 P.3d 611 . ¶ 16 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from twice “be[ing] subject for the same offence to ... jeopardy of life or limb” and from “be[ing] compelled i

2015"However, we 'retain[ ] the power to decide whether, as a matter of law, a reasonable [fact finder] could find that an implied contract exists." " Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 401 (Utah 1998)). 16 Contracts implied in fact are "established by conduct." Knight v. Post, 748 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Utah Ct.App.1988).

2008See Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 401 (Utah 1998); Sorenson v. Kennecott-Utah Copper Corp., 873 P.2d 1141, 1144 (Utah Ct.App.1994).

2003See Salt Lake City v. Davidson, 2000 UT App 12,¶ 12 , 994 P.2d 1283 . - The factual findings underlying a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence are reviewed under the deferential clearly-erroneous standard, and the legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge's application of the legal standard to the facts.

2003See Salt Lake City v. Davidson, 2000 UT App 12,¶ 12 , 994 P.2d 1283 . - The factual findings underlying a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence are reviewed under the deferential clearly-erroneous standard, and the legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness, with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge's application of the legal standard to the facts.

2003ANALYSIS 18 "The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1131 (Utah 1994) *648 (quoting U.S. Const. amend.

1994Accord Wade v. Stangl, 869 P.2d 9, 12 (Utah App.1994).