State v. Harding
2011 UT 78
Utah2011Background
- Harding was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Officer Westerman; the driver consented to a general vehicle search, and Harding exited with others while searches occurred
- Backpacks behind the rear passenger seat in the cargo area were searched; ownership not established by the officer at the time
- In the backpacks, officers found items identifying Harding and drugs/paraphernalia; Harding was charged with meth possession and related offenses
- District court denied suppression, holding driver’s consent could extend to Harding’s backpacks; not enough individualized factual findings
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding driver’s apparent authority could justify the search; Harding petitioned for certiorari on apparent authority
- Court grants remand for district court to make particularized factual findings on ownership/apparent authority and reasonableness of the search
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driver’s consent extended to Harding’s backpacks | Harding | Westerman | Remanded; not reasonably extended |
| Whether Rodriguez apparent authority applies in vehicle search context | Harding | State | Remanded; must assess totality of circumstances |
| What factors govern reasonableness of apparent authority in car searches | Harding | State | Factors listed; remand for factual findings |
| Is procedural lack of particularized district-court findings fatal | Harding | State | Remand for detailed factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority framework; mistakes of fact allowed under Rodriguez)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (tests for mutual use/control to establish common authority)
- United States v. Munoz, 590 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2010) (ambiguous ownership; require owner identification before search)
- State v. Worwood, 164 P.3d 397 (Utah 2007) (burden on state to prove reasonableness of officer's actions)
- State v. Maristany, 133 N.J. 299 (1998) (driver’s apparent authority to search passenger’s bag; ownership uncertainty)
- Sawyer v. State, 784 A.2d 1209 (N.H. 2001) (upholding search when ownership and consent implicated by circumstances)
- People v. James, 168 Ill.2d 302 (1995) (ambiguous ownership of passenger’s purse; need ownership clarity)
- Norris v. State, 732 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (backpack search unreasonable where ownership uncertain)
- Maristany, 133 N.J. 299 (1998) (passenger bag search based on driver’s consent; ownership considerations)