379 P.3d 54
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Officers observed a truck idling in a high-crime area; a female passenger (known to be on probation) entered the truck and the vehicle left.
- Officers contacted the passenger’s probation officer, who confirmed a curfew violation and asked officers to contact the probationer and report back.
- Officers stopped the vehicle to investigate the passenger’s probation violation; they questioned the passenger, discovered drug use, and placed her on a 72-hour probation hold.
- During the stop officers ran a background check on driver Moriah Mikkelson, found an expired license and an outstanding warrant, arrested her, and in searches discovered drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine.
- Mikkelson moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the traffic stop was unlawful because it was initiated solely to investigate the passenger’s probation violation; the district court granted suppression. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a traffic stop is lawful when initiated solely to investigate a passenger’s probation violation | State: stop lawful where probation officer directed police to investigate passenger | Mikkelson: stop unlawful because no suspicion the driver committed a crime; probation authority cannot justify stopping non-probationer driver | Police may stop a vehicle to investigate a passenger’s probation violation; driver may be detained incident to that stop |
| Whether police may act at direction of probation officer to investigate/search probationer | State: probation officers may delegate implementation to police | Mikkelson: probation officers cannot delegate such authority to police to justify stops/searches | Police may implement probation officers’ investigative decisions and assist in probation enforcement |
| Whether a probation violation qualifies as "wrongdoing" justifying an investigative stop | State: probation violation is wrongdoing for which detention is permissible | Mikkelson: only criminal activity should justify incidental stops | Probation violation constitutes wrongdoing sufficient to justify a stop and incidental detention of occupants |
| Whether detention of other occupants requires individualized suspicion | Mikkelson: occupants need suspicion of wrongdoing | State: occupants may be detained incident to lawful stop to ensure officer safety and for brevity | Occupants may be detained for the duration of a lawful traffic stop without individualized suspicion; further intrusions require reasonable relation to stop’s purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Velasquez, 672 P.2d 1254 (Utah 1983) (probation/parole searches permissible on reasonable suspicion of violation and related to supervision duties)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (traffic stops may be initiated to investigate occupant conduct; occupants are seized during lawful stop)
- State v. Baker, 229 P.3d 650 (Utah 2010) (occupants may be detained for duration of lawful stop; limits on further intrusion)
- State v. Morris, 259 P.3d 116 (Utah 2011) (describes required particularized, objective basis to stop vehicle for suspected criminal activity)
- State v. Burningham, 10 P.3d 355 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (distinguishes standards for probation officers and police; permits police to act on probation officer requests)
- United States v. Cardona, 903 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1990) (police may be fungible implementers of probation/parole officers’ searches)