State v. Martinez, 2017 UT 43

Background

Trooper Jeremy Horne stopped a car for an improper lane change; George M. Martinez was a passenger.
Horne asked both the driver and Martinez for identification; he returned to his patrol car and ran records checks on both via in‑car computer.
After entering the driver’s license numbers, Horne received the driver’s results and "immediately" received Martinez’s results, learning Martinez had an outstanding arrest warrant.
Horne arrested Martinez about two to three minutes after the stop; Martinez produced a glass pipe that tested positive for methamphetamine residue.
Martinez moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by requesting his ID and running a warrant check without reasonable suspicion; the district court granted suppression.
The State appealed; the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding officer safety justified the brief, voluntary inquiry and the seconds‑long records check did not unreasonably prolong the stop.

Issues

Issue	Martinez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether an officer may ask a passenger for ID and run a background/warrant check without reasonable suspicion	Such requests are investigative detentions beyond a traffic stop’s scope and require reasonable suspicion; evidence from the check must be suppressed	Officers may ask passengers for ID and run background checks as a routine, minimally burdensome officer‑safety measure so long as it does not unreasonably extend the stop	Permissible: officer may request passenger ID and run a background check without reasonable suspicion when voluntary and not unduly prolonging the stop
Whether the records check here unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop	The check impermissibly extended the stop beyond its mission	The records check took only seconds and did not measurably extend the stop	Held not unreasonably prolonged: the inquiry lasted ~1–5 seconds and fell within permissible, negligibly burdensome safety measures
Whether voluntariness of compliance matters	The interaction was effectively a further seizure unless justified by suspicion	The exchange was voluntary (Martinez supplied his ID) and mere questioning is not a seizure	Court treated the ID production as voluntary and not a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring suspicion
Whether prior Utah cases compel a different result	Argued Johnson, Hansen, Chism require reasonable suspicion for additional inquiries	Those cases addressed reasonable suspicion under Terry and did not consider negligibly burdensome safety checks; they do not control here	Court declined to overrule prior cases and distinguished them; allowed limited safety‑based inquiries consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (limits on prolonging traffic stops; stop mission includes safety concerns)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (U.S. 1985) (reasonable seizure test)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (stop‑and‑frisk reasonable suspicion framework)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (traffic stop may not be unreasonably prolonged)
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1997) (order passengers out for officer safety)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (officer safety justifies certain measures during stops)
Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (U.S. 2016) (warrant check can be a negligibly burdensome officer‑safety measure)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2005) (mere questioning does not necessarily constitute a seizure)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (consensual cooperation not proscribed by Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Rice, 483 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (officers may ask passengers for ID and run background checks for safety)
United States v. Chaney, 584 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (brief passenger ID inquiries did not measurably extend stop)
United States v. Jenson, 462 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2006) (officer may run checks on occupants)