State v. Chettero, 2013 UT 9

UHP conducted a stepped interdiction on I-80 in eastern Summit County in mid-November 2008 to intercept California-bound drugs.
The vast majority of stopped vehicles bore out-of-state plates; 147 stops were recorded, with 99.3% out-of-state plates according to dispatch data.
Chettero, a California-plate driver, was stopped late on November 13, 2008, and 105 pounds of marijuana were found in his car.
Chettero moved to suppress evidence on equal protection/right to travel grounds and on Fourth Amendment grounds; the district court denied both motions.
Chettero entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving appellate challenges to the suppression rulings; the case was appealed after scheduling.
The central issues concern whether the stop implicated the right to travel or equal protection, and whether relevant Fourth Amendment evidence should have been considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to travel assertion	Chettero contends selective enforcement infringes the right to travel.	State argues no travel-right violation; disruption was not a fundamental impede to travel.	Right to travel not implicated; claims fail.
Equal protection—selective enforcement	Chettero argues out-of-state plates singled him out unlawfully.	State asserts rational-basis review; classifications tied to drug interdiction goals.	Rational-basis review applied; discrimination justified by legitimate drug-control purpose.
Fourth Amendment suppression and credibility evidence	Chettero sought to introduce statistical evidence to impeach officer credibility regarding stop purpose.	State maintains waiver; evidence would not have altered credibility; stop supported by video and officer testimony.	Denial affirmed; any error harmless or not prejudicial based on record and video corroboration.

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1999) (three-component right to travel; fundamental rights analysis)
Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Maryland Dep’t of State Police, 72 F. Supp. 2d 560 (D. Md. 1999) (economic rights; privileges and immunities discussion)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (drug interdiction interest; stop justification)
State v. Robinson, 254 P.3d 183 (Utah 2011) (rational-basis review in state classifications)
Ry. Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1949) (economic regulation; deference to rational basis )
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1955) (rational basis review; practical corrections by classification)
State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 (Utah 1994) (preservation of suppression arguments; relevance of authority)
State v. Pritchett, 69 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2003) (record completeness in suppression rulings)
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (U.S. 1996) (gender-based classifications; heightened justification standard)