State v. Paredez
409 P.3d 125
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Officer stopped a vehicle for tinted taillights and loud exhaust after the driver initially evaded the stop; passenger Gregorio Paredez remained in the car.
- Driver admitted he lacked a valid license and was an interlock-restricted driver, so Officer determined the vehicle must be impounded under Utah law.
- With the engine off, passenger-side windows were inoperative; Officer opened the passenger door to question Paredez about the stop and the impending impoundment.
- Upon opening the door Officer observed a bulge in Paredez’s pocket, saw a pipe, detained Paredez, and recovered a tinfoil packet from his shoe; field testing was positive for methamphetamine.
- Paredez moved to suppress, arguing the officer exceeded the scope of the stop by opening the door without reasonable suspicion and that discovery of the contraband was not inevitable; the district court denied suppression on three independent grounds.
- Paredez entered a conditional (Sery) plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial; the Court of Appeals affirmed based on alternative, unchallenged grounds (impound justification and inevitable discovery related to impound).
Issues
| Issue | Paredez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer exceeded the scope of the traffic stop by opening the passenger door without reasonable suspicion | Officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to open the passenger door and question Paredez | Officer had reasonable suspicion to question based on driver’s flight, recent jail release, and grocery-store trip; also justified to open door to discuss impound | Court affirmed: even if this ground was contested, alternate unchallenged grounds support denial |
| Whether opening the door constituted an unlawful search because contraband became visible only after door opened | Opening the door was an unlawful search that yielded the contraband | Opening the door was lawful because impound was required and officer needed to speak to Paredez about impoundment | Court affirmed on alternative ground that opening door was justified re: impoundment |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed under the inevitable discovery doctrine | Contraband would not inevitably have been discovered absent the door opening | Evidence would inevitably be discovered when Paredez exited for impoundment and during routine inventory/patrol procedures | Court affirmed: inevitable discovery would have occurred when vehicle was impounded and Paredez exited |
| Whether appellate reversal is required when appellant challenges only one of multiple independent grounds for denial | Suppression required because one ground (scope/RS) was erroneous | Court may affirm based on unchallenged independent grounds (statutory impound and inevitability) | Court affirmed and declined to reach merits because Paredez failed to challenge independent alternative grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (permits conditional pleas preserving appeal of pretrial rulings)
- State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932 (Utah 1994) (discusses limits of Sery on other grounds)
- State v. Roberts, 345 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2015) (appellate courts may affirm on independent alternative grounds not challenged by appellant)
- Wm. Douglas Horne Family Revocable Trust v. Wardley/McLachlan Dev., LLC, 304 P.3d 99 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (appellate affirmance permitted when appellant fails to challenge each ground)