State v. Dominguez
2011 UT 11
Utah2011Background
- Dominguez was stopped around 1:00 a.m. for racing; he had red, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a revoked alcohol-related license on record.
- He refused to blow into a portable breath tester and refused field sobriety tests; there was a strong odor of alcohol on his breath.
- At the police station, Turley prepared a written affidavit and telephoned Judge West, reading only the portions establishing probable cause for a blood draw warrant.
- The magistrate signed the warrant authorizing the blood draw at 2:27 a.m.; the magistrate did not obtain or retain a copy of the affidavit or warrant, and the materials were retained by the officer.
- Dominguez was charged with DUI-related offenses; he moved to suppress evidence on Rule 40(i)(1) grounds; the district court denied, the court of appeals reversed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Rule 40(i)(1) violated by the magistrate's failure to retain warrant records? | Dominguez asserts Rule 40(i)(1) required retention of warrant materials by the magistrate, and failure warrants suppression. | Dominguez contends the magistrate's non-retention violated Rule 40 and the Rule 40(a)(2) recording requirements, potentially tainting the process. | Yes, magistrate did not retain; but remedy not suppression. |
| DoesRule 40(i)(1) violation require suppression under the Fourth Amendment or state law? | Dominguez argues the rule violation triggers suppression as a Fourth Amendment remedy. | Dominguez argues the violation is a prophylactic rule and suppression may be warranted to deter misconduct. | No; suppression not required; remedy denied. |
| If suppression is not required, does Rule 30(a) disregard the defect because it did not affect substantial rights? | Dominguez claims prejudice from the rule violation would warrant suppression. | Dominguez did not show substantial prejudice; trusted affidavit's probable cause remains intact. | Yes, no suppression; error disregarded under Rule 30(a). |
| Did Turley's affidavit provide probable cause despite the Rule 40 violation? | Affidavit may be challenged as inaccurate or tampered with, implicating Franks v. Delaware. | Affidavit is presumed valid; Franks hearing not invoked; Dominguez failed to challenge it and offered no prejudice evidence. | Probable cause established; suppression not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Taylor, 2006 UT 79 (Utah) (retention of warrants and supporting materials by the magistrate required)
- State v. Visser, 2000 UT 88 (Utah) (standard of review for appeals in suppression rulings)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S.) (presumption of validity of a warrant affidavit; Franks hearing as exception)
- State v. Nielsen, 727 P.2d 188 (Utah 1986) (application of Fourth Amendment principles in Utah suppression context)
- State v. Rodriguez, 2007 UT 15 (Utah) (probable cause considerations in Utah )
- Moore (Virginia v. Moore), 553 U.S. 164 (U.S.) (reasonableness as the touchstone of search)
- State v. Moreno, 2009 UT 15 (Utah) (reasonableness and Fourth Amendment standards applied in Utah)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S.) (exclusionary rule limits; police misconduct focus)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S.) (motion of reasonableness; state rules do not create unconstitutional searches)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S.) (exclusionary remedy limited to police misconduct; deterrence focus)