State v. Simons
296 P.3d 721
| Utah | 2013Background
- Simons, a passenger, challenged a traffic-stop detention after Sorensen was stopped for speeding/insurance issues.
- Deputy Luke suspected Sorensen was impaired based on watery eyes, rapid speech, agitation, and other signs.
- Plain-view items in Sorensen's door compartment included chewed baggies and a white powder residue, leading Luke to suspect drug activity.
- Simons admitted to having a pipe in his underwear; he later shook out a methamphetamine pipe from his pants.
- The officers arrested Sorensen for impairment-related reasons and then arrested Simons after Simons disclosed methamphetamine in his pocket; the district court denied suppression of evidence, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Luke’s detention of Simons was supported by reasonable suspicion | Simons: no independent suspicion for him | State: suspicion existed due to baggies and driver impairment | Yes; reasonable suspicion justified detention |
| Whether Luke’s questioning of Simons extended the stop improperly | Simons: questioned without adequate basis | State: questioning related to suspected drug activity and did not measurably extend stop | Yes; the question length was de minimis and did not extend the stop materially |
| Whether the single question to Simons can be justified under de minimis extension (Arizona v. Johnson) | Simons: not enough to justify extension | State: single question justified under Johnson | Yes; the inquiry did not measurably extend the detention |
| Whether Utah law requires reasonable suspicion to reinitiate a concluded stop | Argument aligns with precedent that stop ends at conclusion | Unclear; Johnson allows de minimis extension | Concurred in judgment; majority’s approach upheld, but concurrence cautioned against rigid end to stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (probable cause to believe passenger possessed drugs in car)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (U.S. 2009) (unrelated inquiries may prolong stop only if not measurably extending duration)
- United States v. Mason, 628 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2010) (one-minute questions about unrelated offenses may not violate Fourth Amendment if brief)
- United States v. Digiovanni, 650 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2011) (extensive unrelated questioning can violate if not diligent toward original stop)
- State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, 63 P.3d 650 (Utah 2002) (initial stop must end before further questioning unless suspicion arises)