State v. Case, 930725-CA

• Decision Date: 02 November 1994
• Docket Number: No. 930725-CA,930725-CA
• Citation: 884 P.2d 1274
• Parties: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James B. CASE, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 1274

884 P.2d 1274

STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James B. CASE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 930725-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Nov. 2, 1994.

Deborah Kreeck Mendez (Argued), Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass'n, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

T. Langdon Fisher, Simarjit S. Gill (Argued), Associate City Prosecutor, Salt Lake City, for appellee.

Before ORME, Associate P.J., BENCH, DAVIS, JJ.

OPINION

ORME, Associate Presiding Judge:

Defendant James Case pled guilty to driving while under the influence of alcohol, a violation of Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44 (Supp.1994), but retained his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an investigative stop. See State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935, 939 (Utah App.1988). Defendant claims on appeal that the investigating officer, acting on a radio dispatch, lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car and that any evidence obtained in the course of the stop was illegal. We agree and reverse.

FACTS

Around two o'clock in the morning of June 26, 1992, Officer Lefavor of the University of Utah Police Department received a dispatch call while on motorcycle patrol, directing him to the 100 Court area of University Village to investigate a possible car prowl or car burglary. The dispatcher described the suspect as male with a chunky build, possibly Hispanic, wearing a white tee shirt. Upon arriving at the 100 Court area, Officer Lefavor observed an automobile with two occupants leaving the area; he noticed that the passenger appeared to fit the dispatched description. The officer stopped the vehicle on Sunnyside Avenue and, after questioning the occupants, determined that they were in the area on legitimate business, i.e., dropping a friend off at her University Village residence. The driver was defendant James Case and the passenger was Richard Farnsworth.

Officer Bradford also responded to the car prowl dispatch and was present at the scene, questioning an individual on foot, when Officer Lefavor stopped defendant's vehicle. Officer Bradford subsequently joined Officer Lefavor in questioning Case and Farnsworth and, like Lefavor, testified that she believed Farnsworth matched the description she received from dispatch.

During the course of his conversation with defendant, Officer Lefavor detected an odor of alcohol coming from inside the car. He subsequently arrested defendant for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the police lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory vehicle stop, (2) whether the dispatch description was overly broad and thus was insufficient to justify the stop, and (3) whether Case or Farnsworth sufficiently matched the dispatch description to justify the stop. In view of our disposition, we need only reach the first issue raised by defendant.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing a trial court's determination that reasonable suspicion justified a Fourth Amendment search or seizure, we apply two different standards of review--one to the trial court's factual findings and the other to its legal conclusions. The trial court's factual findings underlying its decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence are examined for clear error. State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 935-36 (Utah 1994). On the other hand, the standard to be applied to the conclusion of law, i.e., whether the facts as found give rise to reasonable suspicion, "is reviewable nondeferentially for correctness, as opposed to being a fact determination reviewable for clear error." Pena, 869 P.2d at 939. Nevertheless, the nature of this particular determination of law allows the trial court "a measure of discretion ... when applying that standard to a given set of facts." ¹ Id.

INVESTIGATORY AUTOMOBILE STOPS

A. Generally

"[S]topping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a 'seizure' within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). Accord State v. Strickling, 844 P.2d 979, 982 (Utah App.1992). See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1877, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (defining Fourth Amendment seizure as "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away"). A limited crime investigation stop, as defined by Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, must meet a two-prong test to overcome the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. First, the officer's initial stop must be justified; second, subsequent actions must be within the scope of the circumstances justifying the stop. ² Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20, 88 S.Ct. at 1879. Accord Provo City Corp. v. Spotts, 861 P.2d 437, 439 (Utah App.1993). In the instant case, our concern focuses only on the first prong of the Terry test: whether there was reasonable suspicion to justify stopping defendant's automobile.

A stop is justified if there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendant is involved in criminal activity. Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-15 (1990). See also State v. Carpena, 714 P.2d 674, 675 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) (stating police must base reasonable suspicion on objective facts indicating defendant's criminal activity). While the required level of suspicion is lower than the standard required for probable cause to arrest, the same totality of facts and circumstances approach is used to determine if there are sufficient "specific and articulable facts" to support reasonable suspicion. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7-8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). Accord State v. Bello, 871 P.2d 584, 587 (Utah App.1994); Strickling, 844 P.2d at 983.

In addition, the State bears the initial burden for establishing the articulable factual basis for the reasonable suspicion necessary to support an investigative stop. State v. Delaney, 869 P.2d 4, 7 (Utah App.1994).

B. Police Bulletins and Radio Dispatches

The specific and articulable facts required to support reasonable suspicion are most frequently based on an investigating officer's own observations and inferences, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22-23, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880-81, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), but under certain circumstances the officer may rely on other sources of information. An investigative stop may survive the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures if performed by an officer who objectively relies on information, bulletins, or flyers received from other law enforcement sources. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 232, 105 S.Ct. 675, 682, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). Accord State v. Bruce, 779 P.2d 646, 650 (Utah 1989); State v. Seel, 827 P.2d 954, 960 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 836 P.2d 1383 (Utah 1992).

The Hensley decision is a landmark case which added an important clarification to the Terry investigatory stop doctrine. In Hensley, officers from the Covington, Kentucky, police department stopped the defendant based on a "wanted flyer," received via teletype from the St. Bernard, Ohio, police department, describing the defendant's alleged involvement in an armed robbery. Hensley, 469 U.S. at 223, 105 S.Ct. at 677. The Supreme Court first ruled that a Terry stop is not limited to investigation of ongoing or future crimes. ³ Id. at 228-29, 105 S.Ct. at 680. The Court then held that an investigating officer may rely on a flyer or bulletin from other police departments to justify an investigative stop, but only "if the police who issued the flyer or bulletin possessed a reasonable suspicion justifying a stop." Id. at 232, 105 S.Ct. at 682 (emphasis in original).

In allowing such reliance, the Court made a logical progression from its decision fourteen years earlier in Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971), in which it determined the legality of an arrest based on radioed arrest warrant information. The Whiteley Court held that an officer can make a valid arrest based on such broadcast information only if the department issuing the information had sufficient probable cause to support the arrest warrant. Whiteley, 401 U.S. at 568, 91 S.Ct. at 1037. By applying the Whiteley approach to reasonable suspicion scenarios, the Hensley Court concluded that the officer or department who issues a directive for investigation to other police must have sufficient reasonable suspicion, through specific and articulable facts, to support the stop. Hensley, 469 U.S. at 232, 105 S.Ct. at 682. Conversely, "[i]f the flyer ⁴ has been issued in the absence of a reasonable suspicion, then a stop in the objective reliance upon it violates the Fourth Amendment." Id. See generally 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3(f) (2d ed. 1987).

Consequently, if the investigating officer cannot provide independent or corroborating information through his or her own observations, the legality of a stop based on information imparted by another will depend on the sufficiency of the articulable facts known to the individual originating the information or bulletin subsequently received and acted upon by the investigating officer. ⁵ See Hensley, 469 U.S. at 232, 105 S.Ct. at 682; State v. Seel, 827 P.2d 954, 960 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 836 P.2d 1383 (Utah 1992).

ANALYSIS

In the instant case, the trial court made the following findings of fact relating to the dispatcher's radioed bulletin:

1. On June 26, 1992, University of Utah Police Officer [Lefavor] was dispatched to a suspected car prowl, or vehicle burglary, in a common parking area at the 100 court of the University Village sometime after midnight.

2. The dispatcher gave Officer [Lefavor] the following description of the suspect: a chunky male, possibly Hispanic, wearing a white t-shirt. These were the only details provided by the dispatcher.

3. The officer did...