State v. Gurule
2013 UT 58
| Utah | 2013Background
- Police responded to an anonymous report of a suspected drug exchange at a grocery store referencing two Hispanic men and a gray Dodge; dispatch identified a Dodge registered to a person with drug history. Officers observed Craig Gurule exit the store and leave in a black Ford; plate check linked the truck to Gurule’s family name and officers knew Gurule from prior drug-related information and that he was on parole.
- Officers followed Gurule, observed lane drifting and a sustained turn signal, activated lights, and conducted a traffic stop. Gurule delayed stopping, made furtive movements, and glanced away from the road; officers asked him to exit and performed a protective frisk and a plain-view sweep of the driver’s area (both found nothing dangerous or contraband).
- After those limited safety measures, officers called for a canine unit (none available) and then called Gurule’s AP&P agent; the agent asked the officers to "perform a search" on behalf of AP&P. Officers conducted an extensive search of Gurule’s truck and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
- Gurule was arrested; a subsequent AP&P-assisted search of his home uncovered additional evidence. He was charged with drug offenses and moved to suppress evidence from the searches. The district court denied suppression; Gurule entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the suppression motion, applying federal Fourth Amendment standards to whether the stop and its extension were supported by reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gurule) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers lawfully extended the traffic stop to investigate drugs | Officers had reasonable suspicion of drug activity based on anonymous tip, Gurule’s identity/record, furtive movements, and parole status | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion; the stop was prolonged for unrelated drug investigation after safety checks cleared | Stop initially valid for traffic infraction, but extension into a sustained drug investigation lacked reasonable suspicion and was unlawful |
| Whether the protective frisk and plain-view observation were lawful | Frisk and plain-view were reasonable safety measures during a traffic stop | Frisk/plain-view exceeded scope | Protective frisk and plain-view were reasonable and lawful under Terry/Mimms given officer safety concerns |
| Legality of officers searching vehicle at AP&P agent’s request (delegation) | AP&P agent reasonably suspected parole violation and lawfully requested officer search | Search was pretextual and officers improperly executed a parole search without AP&P authority present | Court did not reach merits of AP&P delegation because it held officers lacked reasonable suspicion; issue left unresolved |
| Whether evidence from the vehicle search should be suppressed | Evidence admissible because searches were justified | Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful detention and search | Evidence suppressed because search followed an unconstitutional extension of the stop; district court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 229 P.3d 650 (Utah 2010) (two-part test for stop justification and scope of detention)
- State v. Simons, 296 P.3d 721 (Utah 2013) (officers must remain focused on original purpose of stop; limited unrelated questioning may be tolerated)
- State v. Schlosser, 774 P.2d 1132 (Utah 1989) (nervous, fidgety movements alone do not supply reasonable suspicion)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to stop are permissible if they do not measurably extend the stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (protective frisk authorized when officer reasonably suspects person is armed and dangerous)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (ordering driver out of vehicle during lawful traffic stop is reasonable for officer safety)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable suspicion may be based on the totality of the circumstances; need not rule out innocent conduct)
- State v. Markland, 112 P.3d 507 (Utah 2005) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts; not a mere hunch)