Utah Code
Utah Code § 77-23-104 (2026)
Written plan -- Approval of magistrate
✓ laws through the 2026 General Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An administrative traffic checkpoint may be established and operated upon written authority of a magistrate.
A magistrate may issue written authority to establish and operate an administrative traffic checkpoint if:
a command level officer submits to the magistrate a written plan signed by the command level officer describing:
the location of the checkpoint including geographical and topographical information;
the date, time, and duration of the checkpoint;
the sequence of traffic to be stopped;
the purpose of the checkpoint, including the inspection or inquiry to be conducted;
the minimum number of personnel to be employed in operating the checkpoint, including the rank of the officer or officers in charge at the scene;
the configuration and location of signs, barriers, and other means of informing approaching motorists that they must stop and directing them to the place to stop;
any advance notice to the public at large of the establishment of the checkpoint; and
the instructions to be given to the enforcement officers operating the checkpoint;
the magistrate makes an independent judicial determination that the plan appropriately:
minimizes the length of time the motorist will be delayed;
minimizes the intrusion of the inspection or inquiry;
minimizes the fear and anxiety the motorist will experience;
minimizes the degree of discretion to be exercised by the individual enforcement officers operating the checkpoint; and
maximizes the safety of the motorist and the enforcement officers; and
the administrative traffic checkpoint has the primary purpose of inspecting, verifying, or detecting:
drivers that may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
license plates, registration certificates, insurance certificates, or driver licenses;
violations of Title 23A, Wildlife Resources Act; or
other circumstances that are specifically distinguishable by the magistrate from a general interest in crime control.
Upon determination by the magistrate that the plan meets the requirements of Subsection (2), the magistrate shall sign the authorization and issue it to the command level officer, retaining a copy for the court's file.
A copy of the plan and signed authorization shall be issued to the checkpoint command level officer participating in the operation of the checkpoint.
Any enforcement officer participating in the operation of the checkpoint shall conform the enforcement officer's activities as nearly as practicable to the procedures outlined in the plan.
The checkpoint command level officer shall be available to exhibit a copy of the plan and signed authorization to any motorist who has been stopped at the checkpoint upon request of the motorist.
Amended by Chapter 34, 2023 General Session
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1994–2003 · leading case: State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, 996 P.2d 546.
State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, 996 P.2d 546. “Hazleton, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 . [3] The application stated that the checkpoint was to take place on May 23, 1997, between the hours of 2 p.”
State v. DeHerrera, 965 P.2d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 (Supp.1992) (outlining statutory requirements for administrative traffic checkpoint).”
State v. Abell, 2003 UT 20, 70 P.3d 98. “The application was submitted pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 (1999), which requires judicial approval of a written plan prior to the operation of a checkpoint.”
State v. Sims, 881 P.2d 840 (Utah 1994). “1993), [3] the issue raised by the State whether article I, section 14 requires roadblocks to be statutorily authorized is unlikely to recur, let alone evade appellate review. See Burkett, 773 P.”
United States v. Shayesteh, No. 97-4111 (10th Cir. Oct. 6, 1998). “Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 . -2- The roadblock was set up and operating on a highway in southern Utah on Memorial Day 1995.”
United States v. Medina-Galaviz, No. 98-4007 (10th Cir. Dec. 18, 1998). “The checkpoint, which was purportedly approved by a judicial officer pursuant to Utah Code § 77-23-104, provided that every vehicle would be stopped at the roadblock, unless more than ten vehicles became backed up.”
Utah Code § 77-23-104(2): 2 cases
State v. DeBooy, 2000 UT 32, 996 P.2d 546. “Hazleton, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 . [3] The application stated that the checkpoint was to take place on May 23, 1997, between the hours of 2 p.”
State v. DeHerrera, 965 P.2d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 (Supp.1992) (outlining statutory requirements for administrative traffic checkpoint).”
Utah Code § 77-23-104(2)(a)(iv): 1 case
State v. Abell, 2003 UT 20, 70 P.3d 98. “The application was submitted pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 (1999), which requires judicial approval of a written plan prior to the operation of a checkpoint.”
Utah Code § 77-23-104(2)(a)(v): 1 case
State v. DeHerrera, 965 P.2d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). “See Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-104 (Supp.1992) (outlining statutory requirements for administrative traffic checkpoint).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.