Utah DUI Rights of Drivers and Traffic Stops

Salt Lake City DUI Defense Lawyer

Utah DUI Case Law

A. Rights of Drivers

Police officers cannot randomly stop vehicles, such random stops are held unconstitutional. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (holding that random stops of vehicle are unconstitutional).

In order for there to exist a lawful stop, the standard was long-settled under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968): [I]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonable warrant intrusion.

When law enforcement observe activity in "open view" from a position "lawfully accessible to the public" there is no infringement upon an individual’s "reasonable expectation of privacy," and thus do not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. What he views in your vehicle lawfully will be admitted. State v. Lee, 633 P.2d 48, 51 (Utah 1981) (emphasis added) (ruling, in Fourth Amendment search and seizure context, that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an automobile parked in a parking lot open to the public).

Officer may randomly run vehicle plate information because the plate is "in plain view on the outside of the car" and thus, are "subject to seizure" because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Matthews, 615 F.2d 1279, 1285 (10th Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 974 (10th Cir. 1989).

B. When Police Can Lawfully Stop a Driver

In the context of an impaired driver, law enforcement may initiate a traffic stop if:

• 1) The officer observed a traffic violation or a vehicle equipment violation. State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1131 (Utah 1994) ("The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures extends to a person’s automobile").
• 2) The officer observed suspicious driving. Clues the officer may rely on include*:
• Driver Fails to Maintain Proper Lane Position:
• Weaving within a lane
• Weaving across lane lines
• Straddling a lane line
• Drifting
• Swerving
• Almost striking a vehicle or other object, and
• Turning with a wide radius, or drifting during a curve
• Speeding and Braking Issues:
• Stopping problems (too far, too short, too jerky)
• Accelerating for no reason
• Varying speed, and
• Slow speed
• Problems of Driver Vigilance:
• Driving without headlights at night
• Failure to signal a turn or lane change, or signaling inconsistently with actions
• Driving in opposing lanes or the wrong way on a one-way street
• Slow response to traffic signals
• Slow or failure to respond to officer’s signals, and
• Stopping in the lane for no apparent reason
• Driver Judgment Issues:
• Following too closely
• Improper or unsafe lane change
• Illegal or improper turn (too fast, jerky, sharp, etc.)
• Driving on other than the designated roadway
• Stopping inappropriately in response to an officer
• Inappropriate or unusual behavior, and
• Appearing to be intoxicated

NHTSA, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Student Manual (2004 Ed), pp. V-1 – V-7. However, it should be noted that while some of the above-referenced behaviors will be violations of the traffic code, those that are not may be insufficient to form reasonable suspicion on their own. Officers should be able to articulate a set of behaviors which, in the totality of the circumstances, led the officer to believe that the driver was impaired.

C. The Officer Receives an Informant Tip:

"A reasonable suspicion may be based upon an informant’s tip so long as it is sufficiently reliable." State v. Grovier, 808 P.2d 133, 135 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). In order to determine the reliability of an informant’s tip, the courts have set forth a three part test which analyzes the following:

• 1. Type of tip or informant involved;
• 2. Whether the informant gave enough detail about the observed criminal activity to support a stop; and
• 3. Whether the police officer’s personal observations confirm the dispatcher’s report of the informant’s tip

Regarding anonymous tips, courts routinely hold that, "because an anonymous caller’s basis of knowledge and veracity are typically unknown, anonymous tips are toward the low-end of the reliability scale. State vs. Roth, 827 P.2d 255, 257 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). When dealing with an anonymous tip, prosecutors must elicit as much corroborating evidence from the officer as possible. This must include as much detail as possible about the time and location of the offense, particulars of the offense, description of the vehicle and occupants, as well as the ability of the informant to observe the behavior. Prosecutors should advise law enforcement that an additional driving pattern or observations of impairment must be obtained in order to make a valid stop from an anonymous informant. Citizen informants, on the other hand, generally have much greater indicia of reliability and are more easily supported in court. In Kaysville City vs. Mulcahy, 943 P.2d 231, 235 (Utah Ct. App 1997), the Court of Appeals addressed the reliability of citizen informants:

In contrast [to an anonymous informant], an identified citizen informant is high on the reliability scale. We simply assume veracity when a citizen-informant provides information as a victim or witness of crime. This is because citizen informers, unlike police informers, volunteer information out of concern for the community and not for personal benefit. Further weighing in favor of the reliability and veracity of a named citizen-informant is that the informant is exposed to possible criminal and civil prosecution if the report is false. And, by providing his or her name, a citizen-informant makes it possible for the police to verify the facts underlying the report. Further weighing in favor of the reliability and veracity of a named citizen-informant is that the informant is exposed to possible criminal and civil prosecution if the report is false.

The final factor is whether the police officer’s personal observations confirm the dispatcher’s report of the informant’s tip. The officer may corroborate the tip either by observing the illegal activity or by finding the person, the vehicle and the location substantially as described by the informant. Certainly, officers are encouraged to investigate the suspect immediately, rather than to allow the suspect to drive so that the officer may observe the driving. Otherwise, the risk that the suspect will be involved in an accident increases, which is not in the public’s interest." Lastly, regarding this factor, "where the reliability of the information is increased, less corroboration is necessary. Before proceeding further, we think it vital to emphasize that the tip in this case reported a drunk driver who was at that time on the road.

We therefore must consider the ever-changing equation used to balance the rights of an individual to be free from unwarranted intrusions of his or her freedom of movement and right to privacy with the right of the public to be protected from unreasonable danger. This equation and the balance change with the facts presented.

D. The Officer is Fulfilling a Community Caretaker Function, There is No "Stop".

When an officer is fulfilling a community caretaker function, there is not stop for the purpose of a Fourth Amendment violation. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); see also Provo City v. Warden, 844 P.2d 360, 366 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (upholding the trial court decision to admit the statements of an unidentified person to "explain the conduct of the police officer")