touchstone analysis in Utah

2013Because "[the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security," Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (internal quotation marks omitted), we evaluate the propriety of Officer Flores's frisk based on the totality of the cireumstances, Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . {128 Officer Flores testified that after he activated his overhead lights, Gurule did not immediately stop, but instead looked down to his left and made reaching movements towards the driver

2013Because "[the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security," Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (internal quotation marks omitted), we evaluate the propriety of Officer Flores's frisk based on the totality of the cireumstances, Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . {128 Officer Flores testified that after he activated his overhead lights, Gurule did not immediately stop, but instead looked down to his left and made reaching movements towards the driver

2013Because "[the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security," Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (internal quotation marks omitted), we evaluate the propriety of Officer Flores's frisk based on the totality of the cireumstances, Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . {128 Officer Flores testified that after he activated his overhead lights, Gurule did not immediately stop, but instead looked down to his left and made reaching movements towards the driver

2013Because "[the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security," Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (internal quotation marks omitted), we evaluate the propriety of Officer Flores's frisk based on the totality of the cireumstances, Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 . {128 Officer Flores testified that after he activated his overhead lights, Gurule did not immediately stop, but instead looked down to his left and made reaching movements towards the driver

2019State v. Warren, 2003 UT 36, ¶ 14 , 78 P.3d 590 (quotation simplified).

2019State v. Warren, 2003 UT 36, ¶ 14 , 78 P.3d 590 (quotation simplified).

2017“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular government invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” State v. Applegate, 2008 UT 63, ¶ 7 , 194 P.3d 925 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular government invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” State v. Applegate, 2008 UT 63, ¶ 7 , 194 P.3d 925 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2015The touchstone of the analysis under Utah Code seetion 76-1-402(8) and the Double Jeopardy Clause is the intent of the Legislature, Smith, 2005 UT 57, ¶ 9 , 122 P.3d 615 , and Mr. Bond errs in failing to acknowledge the difference between the statutes at issue in Shaffer, Wood, and Nielsen and the aggravated murder statute under which he was convicted. 169 To resolve whether convie-tions must merge, the "determination to be made is whether the legislature intended" an offense to be a lesser included offense of another.

2015The touchstone of the analysis under Utah Code seetion 76-1-402(8) and the Double Jeopardy Clause is the intent of the Legislature, Smith, 2005 UT 57, ¶ 9 , 122 P.3d 615 , and Mr. Bond errs in failing to acknowledge the difference between the statutes at issue in Shaffer, Wood, and Nielsen and the aggravated murder statute under which he was convicted. 169 To resolve whether convie-tions must merge, the "determination to be made is whether the legislature intended" an offense to be a lesser included offense of another.

2005However, "[t]he ordinary requirement of a warrant is sometimes supplanted by other elements that render the unconsented search `reasonable.'" Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 185 , 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990).

2005However, "[t]he ordinary requirement of a warrant is sometimes supplanted by other elements that render the unconsented search `reasonable.'" Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 185 , 110 S.Ct. 2793 , 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990).

2005Although the amendment has been interpreted as drawing "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), that line can be crossed so long as the government entry is reasonable under the circumstances, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 , 121 S.Ct. 946 , 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (observing that the Fourth Amendment's "`central requirement' is one of reasonableness"); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ("The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is [and

2005Although the amendment has been interpreted as drawing "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), that line can be crossed so long as the government entry is reasonable under the circumstances, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 , 121 S.Ct. 946 , 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (observing that the Fourth Amendment's "`central requirement' is one of reasonableness"); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ("The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is [and

2005Although the amendment has been interpreted as drawing "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), that line can be crossed so long as the government entry is reasonable under the circumstances, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 , 121 S.Ct. 946 , 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (observing that the Fourth Amendment's "`central requirement' is one of reasonableness"); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ("The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is [and

2005Although the amendment has been interpreted as drawing "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), that line can be crossed so long as the government entry is reasonable under the circumstances, see Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 , 121 S.Ct. 946 , 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (observing that the Fourth Amendment's "`central requirement' is one of reasonableness"); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ("The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is [and

2003IV. "[The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always 'the reasonableness in all the cireumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security[,l " [which] "depends 'on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. " Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 411 , 117 S.Ct. 882, 884-85 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (citations omitted).

2003IV. "[The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always 'the reasonableness in all the cireumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security[,l " [which] "depends 'on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. " Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 411 , 117 S.Ct. 882, 884-85 , 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997) (citations omitted).

2003We will generally consider the detention of a citizen reasonable, and thereby constitutional, only if the officers involved in the detention can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the person being detained " 'has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense" " State v. Fridleifson, 2002 UT App 322,¶ 8 , 57 P.3d 1098 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-15 (1999)).

2003We will generally consider the detention of a citizen reasonable, and thereby constitutional, only if the officers involved in the detention can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the person being detained " 'has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense" " State v. Fridleifson, 2002 UT App 322,¶ 8 , 57 P.3d 1098 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-15 (1999)).

2003Reasonableness depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S. 873 , 878 (1975) (citation omitted).