State v. Purcell
| Decision Date | 20 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 15759,15759 |
| Citation | 586 P.2d 441 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Selmar Ray PURCELL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Shelden R. Carter, Utah County Legal Defenders Association, Provo, for defendant and appellant.
Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Earl T. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Noall T. Wootton, Utah County Atty., Provo, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of Forgery in violation of U.C.A., 1953, 76-6-501.
The sole issue raised on appeal is the propriety of the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant contends that his constitutional rights were violated because the search warrant was issued without probable cause. 1
The pertinent facts are abstracted as follows: One Warburton reported to the police a combined burglary and theft at his place of business wherein a quantity of blank checks and a check protector were taken. Shortly after the banks were alerted, a teller at one of them observed a blue Buick Skylark automobile at her drive-up window. An occupant thereof presented a check to her for payment bearing Warburton's name, and also produced a motor vehicle driver's license for purposes of identification. The teller photographed both documents and returned them to the occupant advising him that she could not cash the check since it was drawn on another bank and that he must present it there. As the automobile was being driven away, the teller recorded its license number and description on the photocopy made of the check and license. A police check revealed the automobile to have been registered in the name of, and stolen from, a local resident. The defendant was apprehended within 30 minutes while driving the stolen automobile and he was subsequently identified as the person who possessed and attempted to cash the check. The signature thereon was attested to have been affixed in defendant's handwriting by an expert's examination of an exemplar. The arresting officer's affidavit in support of the search warrant described the details of the burglary, theft and description of the automobile to be searched; however, no informants were named other than Warburton.
It is to be noted at the outset that this appeal is without merit for one very obvious reason, if for no other. Defendant simply lacks standing in court to attack the warrant as to the search of the stolen automobile, since on the facts before us, defendant had absolutely no possessory or proprietary interest therein that could have been invaded. 2
The challenge as to the propriety of the search warrant is also without merit. The arresting officer's affidavit, upon which the warrant was issued, not only described the automobile to be searched in detail, but other substantial information was recited as being furnished by an unnamed informant. Such information is presumably accurate until rebutted by one challenging the validity of a warrant on the basis of lack of probable cause. In this instance, def...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Leonard
...State v. Constantino, 732 P.2d 125, 126-27 (Utah 1987) (per curiam); State v. Valdez, 689 P.2d 1334, 1335 (Utah 1984); State v. Purcell, 586 P.2d 441, 443 (Utah 1978). In Schlosser, however, the court held that standing to challenge the validity of a search is not a jurisdictional doctrine,......
-
Josephs v. Com., 0423-87-2
...which he has stolen." Id. at 564, 633 P.2d at 372; see also Graham v. State, 47 Md.App. 287, 421 A.2d 1385 (1980); State v. Purcell, 586 P.2d 441 (Utah 1978); State v. Cowen, 104 Idaho 649, 662 P.2d 230 (1983) (Rakas interpreted as barring passenger from questioning stopping of car); State ......
-
State v. Larocco
...defendant did not own or did not have an interest in the property searched. See State v. Valdez, 689 P.2d 1334 (Utah 1984); State v. Purcell, 586 P.2d 441 (Utah 1978); State v. Montayne, 18 Utah 2d 38, 414 P.2d 958 We agree. Where a defendant has not declared beforehand that he has no inter......
-
State v. Schlosser
...State v. Ribera, 183 Mont. 1, 597 P.2d 1164 (1979); see State v. Mustain, 21 Wash.App. 39, 584 P.2d 405 (1978); see also State v. Purcell, 586 P.2d 441 (Utah 1978). The majority is in error in evading the question of the standing of Schlosser. We have never required that issue to be raised ......