State v. Gurule, 321 P.3d 1039

Background

Officers responded to an anonymous report of a possible drug exchange at a grocery store mentioning two Hispanic men and a gray Dodge; the caller gave a license plate registered to a person with prior drug involvement.
Shortly after, officers observed Craig Gurule (known to them and on parole) leave the store in a different truck; they followed him for a traffic infraction (riding the fog line) and initiated a stop.
After Gurule delayed stopping, officers had him exit the vehicle, performed a protective frisk and a plain-view observation of the driver area (finding nothing), then called for a K-9 (none available) and contacted AP&P.
An AP&P on-call agent asked officers to search the vehicle for AP&P; the officers conducted an extensive search and found methamphetamine and related items in a bag inside the driver-side door.
Gurule was arrested, later pleaded guilty conditionally to possession in a drug-free zone while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The district court denied suppression; the Utah Supreme Court reviewed that denial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Gurule's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a drug investigation	Anonymous tip + Gurule’s presence near reported scene, his parole status, prior attention files, and furtive movements gave reasonable suspicion	Those facts were insufficient; movements and status amount to a hunch, not articulable suspicion	No: officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for a drug investigation; expansion was unconstitutional
Whether the initial protective frisk and plain‑view observation were lawful	Frisk/plain‑view were justified by officer safety concerns and lawful vantage point	Argues frisk/search exceeded permissible scope	Yes: ordering driver out, frisk, and plain‑view observation were reasonable and lawful
Whether the officers’ calls to K‑9 and AP&P and subsequent search were a de minimis continuation of the stop	Contacting AP&P and searching were necessary investigative steps supported by evolving suspicion	Those steps transformed the stop into an unrelated, prolonged drug investigation absent reasonable suspicion	No: calls and search measurably extended the stop and were not de minimis; unlawful extension and search
Whether evidence seized must be suppressed	Evidence tied to lawful continuation under AP&P authority	Evidence was obtained after unlawful extension; should be suppressed	Yes: evidence from the vehicle search was obtained unlawfully and should have been suppressed; reversal and remand granted. Court did not decide whether AP&P could delegate search authority to officers

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes standards for protective frisk during investigatory stop)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle during traffic stop for safety)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (unrelated questioning allowed only so long as it does not measurably extend stop)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable suspicion can arise from the totality of circumstances; need not rule out innocent conduct)
State v. Simons, 296 P.3d 721 (Utah 2013) (limited unrelated questioning can be tolerated if it does not extend stop)
State v. Schlosser, 774 P.2d 1132 (Utah 1989) (nervous or furtive movements alone are insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Warren, 78 P.3d 590 (Utah 2003) (officer safety justifies ordering driver out; protective frisk requires articulable facts)
State v. Baker, 229 P.3d 650 (Utah 2010) (two‑step test for traffic stop: inception and scope relatedness)
State v. Morris, 259 P.3d 116 (Utah 2011) (officers must diligently pursue means of investigation likely to quickly confirm or dispel suspicion)
State v. Markland, 112 P.3d 507 (Utah 2005) (reasonable suspicion requires specific and articulable facts)