Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in Utah

2024The Court emphasized that “[a]n action is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action.” Id. (cleaned up). ¶28 Accordingly, as it stands today, the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement asks whether the police conducting the search had “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person within the house [was] in need of immediate aid.” Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009) (per curiam) (cleaned up).

2024(Citing 2022 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 513 P.3d 629 .) ¶38 In Smith, we applied the community caretaking doctrine— a “separate but related” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement—to the seizure of a man found sleeping in his car. 2022 UT 13, ¶¶ 1 , 14–15.

2024(Citing 2022 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 513 P.3d 629 .) ¶38 In Smith, we applied the community caretaking doctrine— a “separate but related” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement—to the seizure of a man found sleeping in his car. 2022 UT 13, ¶¶ 1 , 14–15.

2024And as with other Fourth Amendment tests, we measure reasonableness “in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶ 10 , 229 P.3d 650 (cleaned up); see also Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996) (stating that the Supreme Court has “consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry,” which requires reviewing courts to view all the circumstances facing officers in context). 1 1 In addition, courts also must ask under the Fourth Amendment whether the manner and scope of the sea

2024And as with other Fourth Amendment tests, we measure reasonableness “in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶ 10 , 229 P.3d 650 (cleaned up); see also Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996) (stating that the Supreme Court has “consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry,” which requires reviewing courts to view all the circumstances facing officers in context). 1 1 In addition, courts also must ask under the Fourth Amendment whether the manner and scope of the sea

2003App.3d 374 , 180 Ill.Dec. 192 , 537 N.E.2d 13, 15 (1989) (addressing a passenger's standing to object to an automobile search, as well as the voluntariness of the driver's consent to a search); State v. Frie- del, 714 N.E.2d 1231, 1240 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (addressing the scope and effect of a car owner's consent to search an automobile on a passenger's property contained within the car) 2 State v. Armendares, 188 Mich.App. 61 , 468 N.W.2d 898 , 900-01 (1991) (examining a passenger's standing to object to a search of his personal belongings found in the car and concluding that the passenger's bel

2003App.3d 374 , 180 Ill.Dec. 192 , 537 N.E.2d 13, 15 (1989) (addressing a passenger's standing to object to an automobile search, as well as the voluntariness of the driver's consent to a search); State v. Frie- del, 714 N.E.2d 1231, 1240 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (addressing the scope and effect of a car owner's consent to search an automobile on a passenger's property contained within the car) 2 State v. Armendares, 188 Mich.App. 61 , 468 N.W.2d 898 , 900-01 (1991) (examining a passenger's standing to object to a search of his personal belongings found in the car and concluding that the passenger's bel

2000Inevitable discovery is a valid exception to the exclusionary rule, see State v. Northrup, 756 P.2d 1288, 1293 (Utah Ct.App.1988), and "Itlhe appropriate standard governing the inevitable discovery exception is whether 'the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately would have been discovered by lawful means." State v. James, 2000 UT 80, ¶ 16 , 405 Utah Adv.

2000Inevitable discovery is a valid exception to the exclusionary rule, see State v. Northrup, 756 P.2d 1288, 1293 (Utah Ct.App.1988), and "Itlhe appropriate standard governing the inevitable discovery exception is whether 'the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately would have been discovered by lawful means." State v. James, 2000 UT 80, ¶ 16 , 405 Utah Adv.

1987The courts have held, however, that "only in `a few specifically established and well-delineated' situations ... may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny." Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 , 90 S.Ct. 1969, 1972 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)).

1987The courts have held, however, that "only in `a few specifically established and well-delineated' situations ... may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny." Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 , 90 S.Ct. 1969, 1972 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)).

1987The courts have held, however, that "only in `a few specifically established and well-delineated' situations ... may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny." Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 , 90 S.Ct. 1969, 1972 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)).

1987The courts have held, however, that "only in `a few specifically established and well-delineated' situations ... may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny." Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 , 90 S.Ct. 1969, 1972 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)).

1985Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), infuse the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement with vitality by requiring that an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant reveal that there is a reasonably reliable basis in fact for a finding of probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant.

1985Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), infuse the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement with vitality by requiring that an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant reveal that there is a reasonably reliable basis in fact for a finding of probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant.

1985Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), infuse the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement with vitality by requiring that an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant reveal that there is a reasonably reliable basis in fact for a finding of probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant.

1985Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), infuse the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement with vitality by requiring that an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant reveal that there is a reasonably reliable basis in fact for a finding of probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant.