369 P.3d 127
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Police stopped Zachary Rigby for a stop-sign violation; officers smelled burnt and fresh marijuana and observed signs of recent use by occupants.
- A drug-detection dog gave a positive indication; officers announced they would search the vehicle and recovered marijuana and a pipe.
- Rigby was arrested and charged with driving with a measurable controlled substance and possession/use of a controlled substance; he moved to suppress the vehicle search evidence.
- Rigby conceded odor of marijuana established probable cause but argued the Utah Constitution still requires exigent circumstances in addition to probable cause for an automobile search.
- The trial court denied suppression; Rigby pleaded guilty while preserving the suppression issue for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rigby) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Utah Constitution requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless automobile search (automobile exception) | Utah Const. art. I, § 14 affords greater protection than the Fourth Amendment and still requires exigency plus probable cause | Utah historically follows federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence; after Labron only probable cause is required for automobile searches | The court held Labron controls; under both federal and Utah law the automobile exception requires only probable cause (no separate exigency requirement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (recognizes automobile mobility rationale for warrantless searches)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (historical formulation requiring probable cause and exigency for vehicle searches)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (automobile searches reasonable if facts would justify a warrant)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (per curiam) (held that if a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists, no separate exigency is required)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (per curiam) (reiterates that the automobile exception has no separate exigency requirement)
- State v. Watts, 750 P.2d 1219 (Utah 1988) (Utah historically tracks federal Fourth Amendment protections)
- State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990) (plurality urging exigency particularized to circumstances)
- State v. Anderson, 910 P.2d 1229 (Utah 1996) (plurality favoring continued parity with federal law)