State v. Lopes
| Decision Date | 15 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 14327,14327 |
| Citation | 552 P.2d 120 |
| Parties | The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Theodore LOPES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Lynn R. Brown, of Salt Lake Legal Defender Assn., Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant, Theodore Lopes, seeks reversal of his conviction of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 76--10--504, U.C.A.1953. His contention is that the core evidence against him, the weapon, was obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search and seizure.
On June 1, 1975, at approximately 5:30 p.m., the defendant and a woman companion were riding in the defendant's car near Fourth West and Second South and were observed by Salt Lake City police officers, who recognized the woman as one for whom there was an outstanding arrest warrant. The officers ordered defendant to stop and one of them proceeded to place the woman under arrest. The other officer asked to see the defendant's driver's license and made a check, by radio, with police headquarters. Upon so doing, it was disclosed that the defendant was also subject to an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation. He placed defendant under arrest; and a search of his person revealed a pistol tucked in his waistband.
The defendant recognizes that the police officers are authorized by Section 41--2--15, U.C.A.1953, to check his driver's license. But he argues that when nothing is found amiss: that is, that the driver's license and the vehicle registration are in order, that exhausts the officer's prerogative. Wherefore, he urges that his ensuing arrest and search were illegal; so that the discovery and the taking of his pistol could not constitute legal basis for the charge against him.
The pertinent Utah and federal constitutional provisions are identical:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated: 1
It is important to have in mind the purpose those constitutional provisions are intended to serve; and that it is not all searches which are proscribed, but only unreasonable ones. 2 The test to be applied is whether fair-minded people, in weighing the necessary accommodation between the rights of individuals to be free from unnecessary harassment or oppression and the interest of the public in being protected from crime, would regard the police officer's conduct as unreasonable. 3 And further, that this determination is primarily for the trial court; and that it will not be upset unless it is persuasively shown to be in error.
We also observe that when a warrant of arrest is issued, it is obviously impossible for every peace officer who might apprehend the accused to have the warrant in his possession. There is no improperiety in his receiving that information by any reliable means, including by telephone or two-way radio, and thus serving the warrant. It was by the latter means that the officer here learned of the warrant for the defendant's arrest. It is well settled that in making a lawful arrest an officer may make a search of the person arrested and the immediate physical surroundings to check for evidence of crime or dangerous weapons. 4
For the reasons above stated we see nothing unlawful about the search by the officer in performing a lawful arrest pursuant to the warrant for the defendant.
Affirmed. No costs awarded.
In the result, I concur, but believe a constitutional issue of this magnitude merits greater specificity of the relevant guidelines. Section 41--2--15, U.C.A.1953, authorizes a peace officer to stop a motor vehicle to determine if the driver possesses a valid operator's license. If the document is in order, do the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments allow the police to continue the detention period, while a radio check for outstanding warrants is made?
The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. (Citations) '(W)henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person,' (Citation) and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be 'reasonable.' As with other categories of police action subject to Fourth Amendment constraints, the reasonableness of such seizures depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. (Citations) 1
The purpose of Section 41--2--15, U.C.A.1953, is to promote traffic safety by checking to determine that operators of motor vehicles are duly licensed, and not to aid the State in the identification and apprehension of criminals.
. . . the stop and inquiry must be 'reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.' 2
. . . any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause. 3
Under the guise of promoting traffic safety, a person may not be detained and his operator's license retained by the police, while a radio check for outstanding warrants is made. However, such a ruling does not preclude a policeman from making a reasonable investigatory stop, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Trane
...a person validly arrested." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 35, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979); see also State v. Lopes, 552 P.2d 120, 121-22 (Utah 1976). For a search incident to arrest to be constitutional, the underlying arrest must be lawful, but it does not need to be suppor......
-
State v. Larocco
...v. Dorsey, 731 P.2d 1085 (Utah 1986); State v. Earl, 716 P.2d 803 (Utah 1986); State v. Hygh, 711 P.2d 264 (Utah 1985); State v. Lopes, 552 P.2d 120 (Utah 1976); State v. Farnsworth, 30 Utah 2d 435, 519 P.2d 244 (1974); State v. Kaae, 30 Utah 2d 73, 513 P.2d 435 (1973); State v. Shields, 28......
-
Arp v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd.
... ... T. Groezinger, James J. Vonk, George S. Bjornsen and Richard A. Krimen, San Francisco, for respondent State Compensation Ins. Fund ... Philip Miyamoto, Deputy Commissioner, San Francisco, for respondent Workers' Compensation Appeals ... ...
-
State v. White, 920194-CA
...to suppress, this court will uphold the trial court's underlying findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Lopes, 552 P.2d 120, 121 (Utah 1976); State v. Bradford, 839 P.2d 866, 868-69 (Utah App.1992); State v. Hunter, 831 P.2d 1033, 1035-36 (Utah App.1992). Whether reaso......
-
Table of Cases
...United States v., 370 F. Supp. 2d 941 (D. N.D. 2005) 140 Longoria, United States v., 177 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 1999) 240 Lopes, State v., 552 P.2d 120 (Utah 1976) 27 Lopez, State v., 873 P.2d 1127 (Utah 1994) 34 Lopez, United States v., 300 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2002) 234 Lopez, United States v.......
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...State v. Caraher, 653 P.2d 942, 946 (Or. 1982); Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247, 264 (Text Crim. App. 1989) (en bane); State v. Lopes, 552 P.2d 120, 121 (Utah 1976); State v. Ringer, 674 P.2d 1240, 1242 (Wash. 1983), Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478, 481 (Wyo. (109) See New York v. Belton, 453 ......
-
Chapter 2. Traffic Detentions
...be justified by: • Knowledge, or reasonable suspicion, that the driver or passenger is the subject of an arrest warrant. State v. Lopes, 552 P.2d 120 (Utah 1976). 28 CHAPTER TWO • Recognizing the driver as having a suspended driver’s license. United States v. Hope, 906 F.2d 254 (7th Cir. 19......
-
Investigatory Stops: Exploring the Dimensions of the "reasonable Suspicion" Standard
...It may always be an area of uncertainty. --------- Notes: [1] The Utah Supreme Court recognized this conflict in State v. Lopes, 552 P.2d 120, 122 (1976); Stale v. Folkes, 565 P.2d 1125, 1127 (1977); State v. Wittenback, 621 P.2d 103 (1980); and State v. Dorsey, 731 P.2d 1085 (Utah 1986). T......