9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2005After commencing an investigative detention, officers must "`"dilligently [pursue] a means of investigation that [is] likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it [is] necessary to detain the defendant."'" State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1132 (Utah 1994) (alterations in original) (citations omitted). 2003The officers must "diligently [pursue] a means of investigation that [is] likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it [is] necessary to detain the defendant." Id. (emphasis added) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Grovier, 808 P.2d 133, 136 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (other quotations and citation omitted)). 120 Here, the officer conducted a field sobriety test, the driver performed successfully, and thus, any further detention was *184 unlawful. - Officer Wolken exceeded the scope of detention when he requested permission to search the car. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bisseggergreen2 sentences2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ 2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hansengreen2 sentences2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ 2010State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 31 , 63 P.3d 650 ; see also State v. Bissegger, 2008 UT App 256 , ¶ 20, 76 P.3d 178 (finding that requesting permission to search a car after the driver successfully completed a field sobriety test exceeded the seope of the initial stop). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bui-Cornethangreen1 sentence2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chismgreen1 sentence2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spurgeongreen1 sentence2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dorseygreen1 sentence2007"The validity of the probable cause determination is made from the objective standpoint of a 'prudent, reasonable, cautious police officer ... guided by his experience and training." State v. Dorsey, 731 P.2d 1085, 1088 (Utah 1986) (omission in original) (quoting United States v. Davis, 458 F.2d 819, 821 (D.C.Cir.1972)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Patrick H. Davisgreen1 sentence2007"The validity of the probable cause determination is made from the objective standpoint of a 'prudent, reasonable, cautious police officer ... guided by his experience and training." State v. Dorsey, 731 P.2d 1085, 1088 (Utah 1986) (omission in original) (quoting United States v. Davis, 458 F.2d 819, 821 (D.C.Cir.1972)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2003See State v. Robinson, 797 P.2d 431, 437 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (finding Fourth Amendment violation where police did not have "the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity necessary to justify their continued detention and questioning of [defendants] once ... the purpose for the initial stop had been accomplished"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Groviergreen1 sentence2003The officers must "diligently [pursue] a means of investigation that [is] likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it [is] necessary to detain the defendant." Id. (emphasis added) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Grovier, 808 P.2d 133, 136 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (other quotations and citation omitted)). 120 Here, the officer conducted a field sobriety test, the driver performed successfully, and thus, any further detention was *184 unlawful. - Officer Wolken exceeded the scope of detention when he requested permission to search the car. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence1996Defendant claims the officer had no legitimate purpose in asking her identity, 1 in detaining her while a backup police officer arrived to administer a field sobriety test to the driver, and in asking her whether there was alcohol in the car. “[T]he trial court’s final determination concerning lawfulness of á detention or search is reviewed for correctness.” State v. White, 856 P.2d 656, 659 (Utah App.1993). “ ‘[Shopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Casegreen1 sentence1996Defendant claims the officer had no legitimate purpose in asking her identity, 1 in detaining her while a backup police officer arrived to administer a field sobriety test to the driver, and in asking her whether there was alcohol in the car. “[T]he trial court’s final determination concerning lawfulness of á detention or search is reviewed for correctness.” State v. White, 856 P.2d 656, 659 (Utah App.1993). “ ‘[Shopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wittegreen2 sentences1996See State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313 , 836 P.2d 1110, 1112 (1992) (citing Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1068 (25th ed. 1974)). 1996See State v. Witte, 251 Kan. 313 , 836 P.2d 1110, 1112 (1992) (citing Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1068 (25th ed. 1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Holman v. Coxgreen2 sentences1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). 1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. Owens
green
2 sentences1987She asserts that at the time of her arrest and trial, this question was governed by our decision in Hansen v. Owens, 619 P.2d 315 (Utah 1980). 1987East's argument that the holding in American Fork City , which overruled Hansen v. Owens, 619 P.2d 315 (Utah 1980), cannot be applied retroactively is without merit. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ 2021See Chism, 2005 UT App 41, ¶ 22 (“With no continuing reasonable suspicion, [the officer’s] detention of [the suspect] to further investigate the validity of his identification, and the resulting arrest and search, were all unlawful.”); see also Hansen, 2002 UT 125 , ¶ 32 20190208-CA 14 2021 UT App 56 State v. Bui-Cornethan (concluding that questioning a driver about alcohol, drugs, and weapons in his vehicle unlawfully extended the traffic stop where the officer had already verified the driver’s license and registration and completed his computer check); State v. Bissegger, 2003 UT App 256 , ¶ | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Trane
green
2 sentences2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Hechtle
green
2 sentences2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Griffith
green
2 sentences2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Texas v. Brown
green
2 sentences2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 2007Probable Cause to Arrest 19 Defendant claims that Deputy Spotten lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence because Deputy Spotten relied only on reports of Defendant's erratic driving, did not conduct a field sobriety test, and could not detect the odor of alcohol or marijuana on Defendant's person. 2 "[Tlo justify a warrantless arrest 'an officer must have probable cause ... to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense."" State v. Hechtle, 2004 UT App 96, ¶ 10 , 89 P.3d 185 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97 , 1 26, 57 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Delaware v. Prouse
green
2 sentences1996Defendant claims the officer had no legitimate purpose in asking her identity, 1 in detaining her while a backup police officer arrived to administer a field sobriety test to the driver, and in asking her whether there was alcohol in the car. “[T]he trial court’s final determination concerning lawfulness of á detention or search is reviewed for correctness.” State v. White, 856 P.2d 656, 659 (Utah App.1993). “ ‘[Shopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited a 1996Defendant claims the officer had no legitimate purpose in asking her identity, 1 in detaining her while a backup police officer arrived to administer a field sobriety test to the driver, and in asking her whether there was alcohol in the car. “[T]he trial court’s final determination concerning lawfulness of á detention or search is reviewed for correctness.” State v. White, 856 P.2d 656, 659 (Utah App.1993). “ ‘[Shopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a “seizure” within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited a | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Florida v. Royer
green
2 sentences1996“Once a traffic stop is made, the detention ‘must ... last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.’ ” State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1132 (Utah 1994) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)). 1996“Once a traffic stop is made, the detention ‘must ... last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.’ ” State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1132 (Utah 1994) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1325 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Salt Lake City v. Carner
green
2 sentences1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). 1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sandy City v. Larson
green
2 sentences1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). 1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
American Fork City v. Crosgrove
green
2 sentences1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). 1987With respect to the admissibility in East's trial of the field sobriety test results and his statement refusing to take a breathalyzer test, we affirm on the authority of Sandy City v. Larson, 733 P.2d 137 (Utah 1987); Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983); American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985); and Holman v. Cox, 598 P.2d 1331, 1334 (Utah 1979). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.