State v. Gomez, 275 P.3d 1073

Midnight traffic stop on University Parkway in Orem for taillight violation; Gomez in back seat; officer notes no seat belt and driver with suspended license.
Dog alerted to possible narcotics; officers detained three occupants and searched car; found hotel parking pass linked to Gomez and $4,000 cash in driver’s shoe.
Hotel room pass matched a room registered to Gomez; officers infer possible narcotics in room; Gomez questioned about hotel visit and lied at first.
Gomez refused consent to search; after learned others denied any claim to the room, Gomez consented to search the hotel room.
Hotel room yielded cocaine, marijuana, a digital scale; Gomez admitted drugs were his; charges filed; suppression motion denied; Gomez pled guilty with reservation to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did post-refusal detention remain lawful to seek consent?	Gomez contends detention after refusal was illegal and tainted consent.	State argues detention remained justified by reasonable suspicion and continued investigation.	Detention remained lawful; continued inquiry did not taint consent.
Was Gomez's eventual consent to search voluntary?	Consent was the product of illegal detention and coercion after refusal.	Consent was voluntary and not caused by prior illegality; officer pursued legitimate leads.	Consent deemed voluntary; not obtained by exploitation of prior illegality.

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (traffic stops require reasonable scope and justification)
State v. Morris, 259 P.3d 116 (Utah 2011) (two-step Terry framework for traffic-stop seizures)
State v. Applegate, 194 P.3d 925 (Utah 2008) (reasonableness of stop and scope of detention)
State v. Hansen, 63 P.3d 650 (Utah 2002) (limits on detention and validity of consent after stop)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (diligent pursuit of investigation to confirm or dispel suspicion)