*1 employer, rendered I can see
no reason appeal for this and so I would
not award costs in the matter. (concurring): concurring, I reserve for de- future following
termination the issue: Whether employer negligent, have been injuries
concurrently causing the
employee, is entitled reimbursement for
compensation payments, pursuant to 35—1—
62(2), U.C.A.1953. Utah,
The STATE of Plaintiff and Respondent, LOPES, Defendant and
Supreme Court of Utah.
U.C.A.1953, driver’s license. check nothing is found that when argues he But is, and the driver’s license that that amiss: in that registration are vehicle prerogative. Where- the officer’s exhausts fore, ensuing and arrest urges that discovery illegal; so that search were pistol not con- of his could taking and the against charge for legal basis stitute Legal De- Brown, Lake Lynn Salt him. City, defend- for Assn., Lake Salt fender constitu- pertinent and federal The Utah appellant. ant and provisions identical: are tional Gen., F. Atty. Earl Romney, Vernon secure in people to be Gen., Dorius, Atty. Asst. houses, papers and effects their persons, respondent. plaintiff and for and sei searches against unreasonable zures, violated :1 shall not be CROCKETT, Justice: in mind important is It Defendant, Lopes, rever- seeks provisions purpose those constitutional carrying his conviction of sal of serve; that it is intended to and are weapon in violation of Section cealed proscribed, but which are searches that 10-504, contention is His U.C.A.1953. is applied The test to be ones. him, weapon, evidence the core people, weighing in fair-minded whether unconstitu- result of an was obtained as a between the necessary accommodation and seizure. tional search free from un to be rights of individuals oppression and 1, 1975, approximately 5:30 harassment or
On June protected being in m., compan- interest of the p. and a woman the defendant crime, regard offi would car near ion in the riding defendant’s fur And conduct as unreasonable.3 and were cer’s Fourth West and South Second officers, primarily ther, is by City police that this determination observed Salt Lake court; it that will be the trial and recognized the as one who woman persuasively shown be outstanding upset unless is whom there was an defendant in error. warrant. The officers ordered proceeded place stop and one of them that when observe We also The other offi-
the woman under arrest. issued, obviously it is is of arrest warrant driver’s li- cer asked to see the defendant’s every peace officer impossible for radio, check, by cense and made a have the accused to apprehend the might headquarters. Upon doing, lice so it was is no im- possession. There in his warrant also sub- disclosed the defendant was information receiving that in his properiety ject for a traf- to an warrant means, by tele by reliable placed defendant under fic violation. He serving radio, two-way and thus phone or arrest; person search re- of his means by the latter It was the warrant. pistol tucked in his waistband. vealed a the war here learned that the officer It well recognizes rant arrest an making lawful are authorized Section officers settled 14; Torres, I, 508 P.2d Constitution, 2d 29 Utah State v. Utah Art. Sec. therein; Constitution, ; (1973) cited authorities Amendment XV. States also United and see States, Preston United ’Williams, (1975) Criscola, ; 777; State 2d Utah search of the operators to determine that of motor arrested and the immediate sur- physical licensed, duly vehicles are aid and not to roundings to crime evidence the identification appre- dangerous weapons.4 hension of criminals. n For the reasons above stated we see . . . inquiry must nothing unlawful about the “reasonably search in scope justi- related to the *3 officer in performing pur- a lawful arrest fication their initiation.”2 suant to the warrant for the defendant. any further search must be on prob- based consent or
Affirmed. No costs awarded. able cause.3 HENRIOD, J., and ELLETT C.
TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
guise
promoting
Under
the
of
traffic
safety,
may
a
not be
detained
(concurring in the
operator’s
license retained
the
result) :
lice, while a
radio check for
result,
concur,
In the
but
a con-
I
believe
However,
warrants is
ruling
made.
such a
stitutional
this magnitude
issue of
merits
preclude
not
does
policeman
a
from mak-
greater specificity
guide-
of the relevant
investigatory
a reasonable
stop, under
41-2-15, U.C.A.1953,
lines. Section
au-
circumstances,
appropriate
appropri-
in an
peace
stop
thorizes a
to
officer
a motor ve-
manner;
ate
though
even
prob-
there is no
possesses
hicle to
if
determine
the driver
a
able cause to make arrest.
operator’s
valid
license.
If the document
is in
do the Fourth and Fourteenth
. The Fourth Amendment does
police
Amendments
continue
allow
to
require
policeman
a
who lacks the
period,
the detention
while a radio
precise
level of information
for outstanding
is made ?
probable
warrants
to
simply
cause
to
shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to
to
applies
The Fourth Amendment
occur or a criminal to
escape. On
person,
seizures
seizures
contrary, Terry recognizes
may
involve
brief detention short
be the
good police
essence of
to
work
traditional
[Citations]
adopt an
response.
[Terry
intermediate
police
“[Wjhenever
officer accosts
id.,
23,
88
See
1 at
Ohio]
U.S.
individual and restrains his
to
freedom
1868,
S.Ct.
A
889 at
907.
away,
person,”
walk
has ‘seized’
stop
individual,
brief
suspicious
the Fourth
Amendment
[Citation]
order
to determine his
identity or
requires that
the seizure
“reasonable.”
momentarily
maintain
quo
the status
As
categories
police
action
other
while obtaining
information,
more
subject
to Fourth Amendment
be most
light
facts
straints,
the reasonableness
sei-
of such
known to the
at
the time.
[Cita-
depends
zures
balance between
on
tions]
interest and the individual’s
personal security
free from
case,
In the
instant
did not
interference
law officers.
[Citations]1
if
determine
purpose
of Section
U.C.A.
licensed driver. The vehicle was
1953,
promote
safety by
apprehend
traffic
check-
stopped to
passenger by
exe
Robinson,
218,
881,
4. United States v.
2.
Id.
U.S. at
tus infor and obtained available driver limited intrusion him. This
mation about liberty justified on was here, atlhough there facts,
specific extent for his arrest. probable no cause
was defendant did
temporary detention of rights under the Fourth
violate
Fourteenth Amendments.5 *4 al., BANK UTAH et
FIRST SECURITY OF Respondents, Plaintiffs and Parley Bald- Handy and CO., George a cor- PROUDFIT GOODS SPORTING al., poration, et Defendants defendants-appellants. win, Ogden, for Thatcher, Ogden, Don Allen Paul Nebeker, Quinney & Ray, Supreme plaintiffs-respondents. Court Utah.
HENRIOD, Chief Justice: judgment de- Appeal foreclosure from a priority as- mortgage over clared Proudfit, by Remington serted point Security’s mortgagee First Affirmed, awarded. with no costs time. $45,000from borrowed Proudfit se- mortgage Security, executing First In Novem- for that amount. curing note paid in not been ber, the note had a trust request Proudfit At the full. balance, unpaid was executed deed for a total plus advance an additional indebtedness, a renewal securing $63,000 given, as recited This trust deed was note. in- “payment of the therein, to secure promissory note by a evidenced debtedness totality Thomas, Ariz.App. 230, See State detention is whether appears (1975), P.2d 615 for the circumstances under grounds upon investigative valid; and was which an was based harassing.” Byers, Wash.2d (1975), validity “The test of such brief