State v. Roberts
427 P.3d 416
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- A shopper’s cell phone was reported stolen; its SIM card location traced to Jeremy Roberts’s residence. Officers interviewed Roberts; he gave inconsistent statements about others bringing a phone.
- Officers obtained and executed a warrant to search Roberts’s home for the phone; during that search they found three prescription pill bottles in a kitchen cabinet, labeled to other people who did not live there; some bottles contained mixed/unidentified pills.
- After the SIM card was found on Roberts’s lawn, the officer stopped the phone search, then applied for a second warrant seeking drugs and paraphernalia based on the discovered prescription bottles. A magistrate issued the second warrant within minutes.
- The second search uncovered heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Roberts was charged with multiple drug offenses; he moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the second warrant as lacking probable cause.
- The district court denied the suppression motion. Roberts pleaded guilty to one count while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the second warrant was supported by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Roberts's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second search warrant was supported by probable cause to search for drugs and paraphernalia | The affidavit’s facts (multiple prescription bottles for non-residents; mixed/unidentified pills) gave a fair probability of unlawful possession/distribution of prescription drugs and related evidence | Presence of prescription bottles alone—without specifying controlled substances—does not establish criminality or probable cause | Magistrate had a substantial basis; probable cause existed and suppression was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fuller, 332 P.3d 937 (Utah 2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause analysis)
- State v. Walker, 267 P.3d 210 (Utah 2011) (deference to magistrate’s probable cause determination)
- State v. Poole, 871 P.2d 531 (Utah 1994) (magistrate need not exclude innocent explanations)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (offense establishing probable cause need not be the one identified at arrest)