State v. McLeod
420 P.3d 122
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Officer observed McLeod exit a vehicle in the median, approach three people, walk out of sight, return, and then pull away without signaling; officer initiated a traffic stop for failing to signal.
- At the curb, McLeod could not produce license, insurance, or registration; officer ran a records check while a backup watched McLeod, who was observed "moving around" in his seat and told to stop.
- Records check confirmed a valid license and no warrants; officer neither issued a citation nor told McLeod he was free to leave.
- Officer asked if there was anything illegal in the car; McLeod consented to a search, then reached under clothes prompting officers to order him out and frisk him for safety.
- About ten minutes into the stop, McLeod admitted there was a syringe in the car; search uncovered a heroin-filled syringe and drug "twists."
- District court found the stop was lawfully initiated but concluded the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop; nevertheless, it denied suppression on the (erroneous) basis that the detention did not exceed time reasonably necessary. The court of appeals reversed, holding the post-stop detention violated the Fourth Amendment because no reasonable suspicion justified extending the stop.
Issues
| Issue | McLeod's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer lawfully extended traffic stop to investigate unrelated drug activity | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion; further detention and questions were unlawful so consent was tainted | Prior conduct (approaching people, leaving when seeing officer), furtive movements during stop, and high-crime area supplied reasonable suspicion to extend stop | Court held officer lacked reasonable suspicion; further detention violated Fourth Amendment and evidence suppressed |
| Whether officer completed stop mission before asking about drugs | Stop mission (records check, citation) was complete; asking unrelated questions required new reasonable suspicion | Questions unrelated to traffic were permissible if they did not measurably extend stop | Court agreed mission was complete and additional detention required reasonable suspicion per Rodriguez |
| Whether McLeod's pre-stop conduct constituted evasive behavior | Movements were innocuous and could be innocent; not headlong flight or abrupt evasion | Approaching multiple people and walking out of sight when officer was nearby were suspicious | Court gave little weight to that conduct; did not find it sufficient to create reasonable suspicion |
| Whether furtive movements during records check supported reasonable suspicion | Movements were consistent with searching for documents and not strongly indicative of crime | "Moving around" was furtive and, with other factors, supported suspicion | Court found no factual finding that movements were suspicious and declined to assign them significant weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard for stops)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (Fourth Amendment applies to traffic stops)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (Officer may not extend stop beyond mission absent reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (scope/duration analysis for stops)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (totality-of-circumstances review for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (courts consider totality of circumstances and officer training)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (nervous, evasive behavior as factor in reasonable suspicion)