State v. Rose, 345 P.3d 757

Background

A motorist (Informant) called a Juab County deputy minutes after following a white, older motorhome that was weaving and varying speed between 15–40 mph; Informant reported a “little red-headed boy” (approx. 8–10) driving.
The deputy drove to an intersection on Old Highway 91, observed Informant pass, and three blocks behind saw a single thirty-foot white motorhome; no other vehicles were on the road.
The deputy pulled the motorhome over even though he had not personally seen a traffic violation; he observed an adult male driver with a goatee and bandana (not the red-haired boy reported).
On contact, the deputy detected alcohol, observed signs of impairment, administered field sobriety tests and a portable breath test (both failed), and learned the driver (Rose) was alcohol-restricted and required an interlock device. Rose admitted drinking and letting his son steer briefly.
Rose moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion because the tip lacked detail and was not sufficiently corroborated; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal the court considered whether (under the totality of the circumstances) the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop Rose’s motorhome and affirmed the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop the motorhome	Informant’s tip and the deputy’s observations together provided reasonable suspicion to investigate; stop lawful	Rose: tip lacked details (no make, plate, unique features) and was not corroborated as to the specific vehicle stopped	Court: Totality (tip, timing, Informant followed by single motorhome, no other vehicles) supplied reasonable suspicion; stop upheld
Reliability of an identified citizen informant’s tip	Identified citizen informant gives presumptive reliability	Rose argued informant’s acquaintance with deputy should not enhance reliability	Court presumed reliability for identified citizen informant; did not decide effect of personal acquaintance with officer because presumption sufficed
Whether corroboration requirement was met (that the vehicle stopped was the one reported)	Prosecution: near-contemporaneous sighting of Informant followed immediately by the sole motorhome corroborated identity	Rose: deputy saw an adult (not the red-haired boy), and no observed violations, so insufficient corroboration	Court: Corroboration satisfied by timing, direction, and that the motorhome was the only such vehicle visible; reasonable to infer identity
Whether judicial notice regarding Mona’s traffic patterns was erroneous and dispositive	State relied mainly on observed facts; judicial notice unnecessary to establish reasonable suspicion	Rose challenged judicial notice that Mona is small with little motorhome traffic	Court: Did not need the judicially noticed facts because deputy testified there were no other motorhomes at the time; any error in taking notice was harmless

Key Cases Cited

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment protections apply to temporary detentions like traffic stops)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (Sup. Ct.) (Traffic stop must be lawful at its inception and reasonable in execution)
State v. Roybal, 232 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2010) (identified citizen informant’s tips carry presumptive reliability; reasonable suspicion analysis)
State v. Prows, 178 P.3d 908 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (tip corroboration sufficient where tip description, timing, location, and absence of other traffic made stop reasonable)
State v. Morris, 259 P.3d 116 (Utah 2011) (reasonable suspicion need not come from officer’s personal observation; may be based on tips)
State v. Alverez, 147 P.3d 425 (Utah 2006) (reasonable suspicion evaluated under the totality of the circumstances; officer may rely on combined facts)
State v. Purser, 828 P.2d 515 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (citizen informant reliability and veracity generally presumed)