Court of Appeals hears state challenge after district court suppressed evidence in roadside stop

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument on whether evidence seized after officers removed a man from his vehicle should have been suppressed. The state urged the court to apply the inevitable-discovery doctrine; the appellee said no crime had yet occurred and suppression was required to deter unlawful seizures.

Presiding Judge Michelle Christensen Forrester and Judges Gregory Orme and David Mortensen heard argument in State of Utah v. Abonza over whether evidence gathered after officers removed the defendant from a vehicle should have been suppressed.

The dispute centers on a traffic stop on a rural road in Carbon County where officers observed signs of impairment — watery, glassy eyes; slurred speech; difficulty forming sentences; and the odor of an alcoholic beverage — while the defendant was inside a vehicle. The district court, Judge Don Torgerson found, suppressed the evidence and dismissed the case. The state appealed, arguing the evidence would have been inevitably discovered and urging remand to let the district court decide the doctrine’s applicability.

Why it matters: The court must decide whether evidence obtained after what the district court called an early arrest can be used. The outcome implicates the exclusionary rule’s deterrent purpose and how…

Court of Appeals hears state challenge after district court suppressed evidence in roadside stop

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading