State v. Goddard, 501 P.3d 1188

Two officers on bike patrol in an alley known as a high-drug-use area observed Zachary Goddard seated and "hunched over" items; among those items were twist wrappers the officer recognized as drug paraphernalia, one of which appeared "new and clean" and was directly under Goddard.
As officers approached, Goddard stood and attempted to leave; officers initiated a Terry (level two) stop to investigate possible drug activity.
During the stop Goddard appeared nervous, reached toward his chest/coat, told officers he had a gun in his left coat pocket, and moved his hand toward that pocket; an officer then retrieved a handgun from the pocket.
Officers asked about a concealed weapon permit; Goddard had none. Officers later gave Miranda warnings and arrested him.
Goddard moved to suppress the gun and his statements, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the frisk/seizure lacked reasonable suspicion he was armed and dangerous, and he was subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The district court denied suppression; Goddard entered a conditional plea and appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: the stop and the weapon seizure were supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances, and Miranda warnings were not required at the time the officers asked about the firearm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop	State: Yes — high-drug-use alley + Goddard hunched over twist wrappers, one "new/clean" directly under him, and he attempted to leave justified a brief investigatory stop.	Goddard: No — findings were clearly erroneous; proximity to litter in a public area is consistent with innocent presence and does not establish nexus.	Affirmed — district court findings were supported; totality of circumstances gave objective reasonable suspicion of drug-related activity.
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to frisk/seize the gun	State: Yes — Goddard reached toward his chest, admitted he had a gun in his left pocket, and moved toward the pocket, creating reasonable suspicion he was armed and dangerous.	Goddard: No — the movement was not sudden or inexplicable and did not justify a frisk or seizure.	Affirmed — admission plus movement toward a known firearm justified reasonable concern for officer safety and disarming.
Whether Miranda warnings were required before asking about the firearm	State: No — the stop was a brief Terry detention in public, not custodial; questioning was short, no restraints or indicia of arrest.	Goddard: Yes — he was effectively in custody when officers questioned him about the gun and permit, so Miranda warnings were required.	Affirmed — the encounter did not rise to Miranda custody; warnings were not required before the questions.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes standards for investigative stops and frisks)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (nervous, evasive behavior is a factor in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (ordinary traffic/Terry stops are generally noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (custody test: would a reasonable person feel free to leave under the circumstances)
State v. Markland, 112 P.3d 507 (Utah 2005) (Terry stop upheld without suspicion of a narrowly specified statutory offense)
State v. Mirquet, 914 P.2d 1144 (Utah 1996) (traffic stop can evolve into Miranda custody depending on circumstances)
State v. Warren, 78 P.3d 590 (Utah 2003) (officer safety justifies neutralizing a known weapon during detention)
United States v. Harris, 313 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2002) (if an officer believes an item is a weapon, he may reach inside clothing to remove it)
United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004) (Miranda violations do not necessarily bar admission of the physical fruits of voluntary statements)