pretext doctrine in Utah

16 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (25)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Sierragreen utahctapp · 1988 · cited in 5 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994PRETEXT TRAFFIC STOP In State v. Sierra, 754 P.2d 972, 977 (Utah App.1988), this court acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits “pretext stops.” As we stated in State v. Lopez, 831 P.2d 1040 (Utah App.), cert. granted, 843 P.2d 1042 (Utah 1992): In Utah, the pretext doctrine applies in eases where an officer claims to have stopped a vehicle for a minor traffic violation, but where the court determines the stop was not made because of the traffic violation but rather due to an unconstitutional motivation and, therefore, the officer has deviated from the 1994We have articulated the pretext doctrine as whether a “reasonable ... officer, in view of the totality of the circumstances confronting him or her, would have stopped the vehicle.” State v. Lopez, 831 P.2d 1040, 1044 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Sierra, 754 P.2d 972, 978 (Utah Ct.App.1988), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 689-92 (Utah 1990)).	4	5
State v. Lopezgreen utahctapp · 1992 · cited in 5 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–2009 2 sentences 2009Likewise, arguments under article I, section 24 did not appear applicable until the court of appeals ruled that “equal protection policies constrain us to uphold the pretext doctrine.” Id. (quoting State v. Lopez, 831 P.2d 1040, 1046 (Utah Ct.App.1992)). ¶ 27 The circumstances in this case are not exceptional in the way that the circumstances in Lopez were. 1994In a lengthy dissenting opinion, Judge Russon accepted the State’s invitation to “reconsider the pretext analysis.” Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1050-56 .	3	5
State v. Marshallgreen utahctapp · 1990 · cited in 3 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990) 1992See, e.g., State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah App.1992) (Orme J., concurring); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 882-83 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 800 P.2d 1105 (Utah 1990); State v. Sierra, 754 P.2d 972, 977-80 (Utah App.1988).	3	3
State v. Arroyogreen utah · 1990 · cited in 3 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994We have articulated the pretext doctrine as whether a “reasonable ... officer, in view of the totality of the circumstances confronting him or her, would have stopped the vehicle.” State v. Lopez, 831 P.2d 1040, 1044 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Sierra, 754 P.2d 972, 978 (Utah Ct.App.1988), rev’d on other grounds, State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 689-92 (Utah 1990)). 1992See Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1515 ; United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d at 710-11 . [9] In 1990, the Utah Supreme Court, by implication, ratified our application of the pretext doctrine in State v. Arroyo, 796 P.2d 684, 688 (Utah 1990).	3	3
State v. Lopezgreen utah · 1994 · cited in 8 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1995–2019 2 sentences 2019But “without additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.” Id. ¶16 Miller contends that the officer impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of additional (…continued) for stopping Miller would have been relevant under the pretext doctrine, which examined “the detaining officer’s state of mind [to] divine his or her true motives for making the stop.” State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1137 (Utah 1994). 2019The officer's subjective motivation for stopping Miller would have been relevant under the pretext doctrine, which examined "the detaining officer's state of mind [to] divine his or her true motives for making the stop." State v. Lopez , 873 P.2d 1127 , 1137 (Utah 1994).	2	8
State v. Arroyogreen utahctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990) 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064,	2	2
State v. Figueroa-Soloriogreen utahctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990) 1992See, e.g., State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah App.1992) (Orme J., concurring); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 882-83 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 800 P.2d 1105 (Utah 1990); State v. Sierra, 754 P.2d 972, 977-80 (Utah App.1988).	2	2
State v. Talbotgreen utahctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990) 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064,	2	2
State v. Smithgreen utahctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990) 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064,	2	2
State v. Lovegrengreen utahctapp · 1990 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1994 2 sentences 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990) 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064,	1	2
United States v. Randy Alan Parker John Arthur Sorensongreen ca10 · 1995 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998See also Parker, 72 F.3d at 1449 (“It is therefore irrelevant to the validity of the initial stop whether [the trooper] may have had subjective motivations for the stop.”).	1	1
State v. Cruzgreen utahctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990)	1	1
State v. Delaneygreen utahctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990)	1	1
State v. Robinsongreen utahctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990)	1	1
State v. Harmongreen utahctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990)	1	1
State v. Jonesgreen orctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994Id. at 1044 (citing Sierra, 764 P.2d at 978).	1	1
Tarwid v. Stategreen gactapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 2 sentences 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064, 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064,	1	1
United States v. Kellergreen ilnd · 1980 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Staheli v. Farmers' Cooperative of Southern Utahgreen utah · 1982 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992 1 sentence 1992See, e.g., Staheli v. Farmers' Coop., 655 P.2d 680, 683 (Utah 1982) (burden of proof lies with party most likely to have access to evidence). [17] We concede that the pretext doctrine complicates matters for trial counsel and trial courts.	1	1
State v. Moroccogreen ncctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
United States v. Jose Luis Guzman and Sonia Cruz-Lazogreen ca10 · 1988 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
United States v. William O. Trigggreen ca7 · 1989 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
United States v. Gregory Lynn Cummins, United States of America v. Timothy Akins, A/K/A Michael Mayfieldgreen ca8 · 1991 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
United States v. William O. Trigggreen ca7 · 1991 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
State v. Ramirezgreen utah · 1991 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Johnson neutral utah · 2017 2 sentences 2017This court held that a rare 14 Cite as: 2017 UT 70 Opinion of the Court procedural anomaly justified the defendant’s failure to raise the issue below because, “[a]t the time of the suppression hearing, the pretext doctrine was the controlling rule of Fourth Amendment law as interpreted by the court of appeals,” and the defendant “had no reason to” raise the state constitutional claim at that time. 2017This court held that a rare 14 Cite as: 2017 UT 70 Opinion of the Court procedural anomaly justified the defendant’s failure to raise the issue below because, “[a]t the time of the suppression hearing, the pretext doctrine was the controlling rule of Fourth Amendment law as interpreted by the court of appeals,” and the defendant “had no reason to” raise the state constitutional claim at that time.	2	2017–2017
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1994He rejected the pretext stop doctrine and recommended “a return to the basic analysis of the legality of seizures established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 , 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).” 831 P.2d at 1051 . 1994He rejected the pretext stop doctrine and recommended “a return to the basic analysis of the legality of seizures established in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 , 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).” 831 P.2d at 1051 .	2	1992–1994
Delaware v. Prouse green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 1994We recognize that the pretext doctrine is aimed at circumscribing the “standardless and unconstrained discretion ... of the official in the field.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661 , 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1400 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). 1994We recognize that the pretext doctrine is aimed at circumscribing the “standardless and unconstrained discretion ... of the official in the field.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661 , 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1400 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).	2	1992–1994
State v. Baker green utah · 2010 1 sentence 2019But “without additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.” Id. ¶16 Miller contends that the officer impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of additional (…continued) for stopping Miller would have been relevant under the pretext doctrine, which examined “the detaining officer’s state of mind [to] divine his or her true motives for making the stop.” State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1137 (Utah 1994).	1	2019–2019
Segura v. United States green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2004Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 , 104 S.Ct. 3380, 3391 , 82 LEd.2d 599 (1984). 2004Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 , 104 S.Ct. 3380, 3391 , 82 LEd.2d 599 (1984).	1	2004–2004
State v. Archuleta green utah · 1993 2 sentences 1995In State v. Archuleta, this court addressed a pretext arrest argument. 850 P.2d 1232 (Utah), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 476 , 126 L.Ed.2d 427 (1993). 1995In State v. Archuleta, this court addressed a pretext arrest argument. 850 P.2d 1232 (Utah), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 476 , 126 L.Ed.2d 427 (1993).	1	1995–1995
Rhodes v. United States green scotus · 1993 2 sentences 1995In State v. Archuleta, this court addressed a pretext arrest argument. 850 P.2d 1232 (Utah), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 476 , 126 L.Ed.2d 427 (1993). 1995In State v. Archuleta, this court addressed a pretext arrest argument. 850 P.2d 1232 (Utah), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 476 , 126 L.Ed.2d 427 (1993).	1	1995–1995
United States v. Cecil Ferguson green ca6 · 1993 1 sentence 1994We are not convinced that this focus on usual police practice magically transforms the pretext doctrine into an objective assessment of an officer’s conduct. “ ‘[Objective evidence’ of ... general police practice is simply an aggregation of the subjective intentions of officers in the regions.” Ferguson, 8 F.3d at 391 .	1	1994–1994
People v. Miranda green calctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1994Fourth Amendment protections cannot vary from county to county, nor can they be defined by the job description of the seizing officer. “[S]uch a ease-by-case, poliee-department-by-police-department approach fails to provide the consistency and predictability officers need to meaningfully understand their obligations under the fourth amendment.” Miranda, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d at 791 .	1	1994–1994
State v. Chapman green utahctapp · 1992 1 sentence 1994See, e.g., State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1994); State v. Harmon, 854 P.2d 1037, 1039-40 (Utah Ct.App.1993); State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725 , 727 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1992), cert. granted, 857 P.2d 948 (Utah 1993); State v. Cruz, 838 P.2d 83, 84-85 (Utah Ct.App.1992); Lopez, 831 P.2d at 1044-50 ; State v. Figueroa-Solorio, 830 P.2d 276, 281-82 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (opinion of Orme, J., joined by Billings, J.); State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 771 n. 10 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 435 (Utah Ct.App.1990); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah Ct.App.1990)	1	1994–1994
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1994As applied, the doctrine may insulate suspicious citizens from liability for violating the traffic laws. 8 The United States Supreme Court disapproved of this unequal enforcement of the law in United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 , 103 S.Ct. 2573 , 77 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983). 1994As applied, the doctrine may insulate suspicious citizens from liability for violating the traffic laws. 8 The United States Supreme Court disapproved of this unequal enforcement of the law in United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 , 103 S.Ct. 2573 , 77 L.Ed.2d 22 (1983).	1	1994–1994
People v. Guerrieri green illappct · 1990	1	1992–1992
Cannon v. United States green scotus · 1886	1	1992–1992
Yick Wo v. Hopkins green scotus · 1886	1	1992–1992
Kehoe v. State red fla · 1988 2 sentences 1992See State v. Lovegren, 798 P.2d 767 , 770 n. 10 (Utah App.1990) (Bench, Davidson, and Orme, J.J.); State v. Smith, 781 P.2d at 883 (Bench, Billings, Orme, JJ.); State v. Marshall, 791 P.2d 880, 883 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Davidson, and Jackson, J.J.); State v. Arroyo, 770 P.2d 153, 154 (Utah App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (Billings, Bench, and Garff, J.J.); State v. Talbot, 792 P.2d 489, 491-92 (Utah App.1990) (Billings, Greenwood, and Orme, J.J.); Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-78 (Billings, Bench, and Jackson, J.J.). [9] But see United States v. Trigg, 925 F.2d 1064, 1992See Guzman, 864 F.2d at 1515— 16; Smith, 799 F.2d at 708 ; Kehoe, 521 So.2d at 1096 ; Grovier, 808 P.2d at 135 ; Baird, 763 P.2d at 1216 ; Marshall, 791 P.2d at 882-83 ; Sierra, 754 P.2d at 977-80 . .	1	1992–1992
United States v. Timothy Andrew Smith, Stephen Lawrence Swindell green ca11 · 1986	1	1992–1992
People v. Camarre green nyappdiv · 1991	1	1992–1992
State v. Baird green utahctapp · 1988	1	1992–1992
State v. Grovier green utahctapp · 1991	1	1992–1992
Cummins v. United States green scotus · 1991	1	1992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

UT § Utah Code § 76-5-209 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 22 (1990–2026) UT 16 (1992–2019) WA 15 (1992–2019) IA 9 (1994–2020) IL 7 (1991–2025) KS 6 (1994–2023) CA 6 (1999–2025) NM 5 (1990–2016) NY 4 (1993–2024) IN 4 (1995–2025) PA 4 (2010–2018) CT 4 (2000–2015) AK 4 (2001–2019) NJ 4 (2005–2024) FL 4 (1993–2023) AR 3 (2002–2010) MO 3 (1958–2013) NV 3 (1995–2016) MA 3 (1995–2026) MS 2 (1916–1930) TN 2 (2010–2017) CO 2 (1995–1996) DC 2 (2010–2012) HI 2 (2008–2010) MD 2 (2022–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check