State v. Floyd
321 P.3d 1170
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Police went to a residence to arrest a parolee; after arresting him they found meth on his person and a pipe in his room.
- A drug-detection dog alerted in common areas and specifically at Floyd’s locked room; a parolee’s girlfriend told police there were drugs in Floyd’s room and denied responsibility.
- Police obtained a search warrant for Floyd’s room based on the dog alert, the girlfriend’s statement, and an anonymous tip alleging Floyd’s involvement in narcotics distribution; they found drugs and arrested Floyd.
- Floyd moved to suppress, arguing the warrant was tainted by evidence obtained after an allegedly unlawful canine search (i.e., police exceeded the scope of the initial entry). He limited his district-court challenge to the dog-search issue.
- The district court denied suppression; Floyd was convicted. On appeal he instead challenged the sufficiency of the affidavit supporting the warrant (dog training, informant reliability, girlfriend’s motive). The appellate court held these arguments were not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of warrant-sufficiency challenges | Floyd contends affidavit lacked indicia of reliability (dog training, anonymous tip, girlfriend’s credibility) | Trial counsel limited suppression argument to unlawful dog search; did not challenge affidavit content | Not preserved; appellate review denied because issue was not raised below and defense counsel affirmatively limited the challenge (invited error) |
| Scope of initial canine search | Floyd (below) argued police exceeded lawful scope by continuing canine search after arresting parolee | State argued canine search of common areas was authorized to locate drugs accessible to parolee | District court rejected suppression on this ground (not reviewed on appeal) |
| Plain error / exceptional circumstances exception | Floyd did not assert plain error or exceptional circumstances on appeal | State argued absence of preservation forecloses review; invited-error doctrine applies because counsel represented no other challenge | Court declined to review; no claim of ineffective assistance to excuse waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (preservation requires timely, specific presentation of issue and supporting authority)
- State v. Kozlov, 276 P.3d 1207 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (appellate courts generally decline issues raised first on appeal absent plain error or exceptional circumstances)
- State v. Winfield, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (issues not preserved are waived; invited-error doctrine bars review when counsel affirmatively represents no objection)
- State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah 2005) (declining to review unpreserved claim absent plain error or exceptional circumstances)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (preservation rules promote trial-court opportunity to correct errors and fairness)
- State v. King, 131 P.3d 202 (Utah 2006) (preservation encourages adversarial testing of issues)
- State v. Sellers, 248 P.3d 70 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (invited error does not preclude review of ineffective-assistance claims)