State of Utah v. Brokmeyer

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Don Brokmeyer,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000280-CA

F I L E D
November 2, 2000 2000 UT App 303 -----

Seventh District, Monticello Department
The Honorable Lyle R. Anderson

Attorneys:
Rosalie Reilly, Monticello, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Jeffrey S. Gray, Salt Lake City, and Craig C. Halls, Monticello, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Brokmeyer appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

A police officer who stops a vehicle for a traffic violation may ask for a driver's license, insurance, and vehicle registration and may run a computer check based on that information. See State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1132 (Utah 1994). This is what Officer Begay did. He stopped Brokmeyer and a companion because of a broken license plate light and asked them for vehicle registration and for proof of insurance. While they were looking for those documents, Officer Begay saw an illegal mushroom in the truck's ashtray. This gave the officer "reasonable suspicion of more serious criminal activity" and justified his further detention of Brokmeyer. Id. Officer Begay had the parties exit the vehicle and asked if they had drugs, which was in keeping with the requirement that he "'diligently [pursue] a means of investigation that [is] likely to confirm or dispel [his] suspicions quickly.'" State v. Grovier, 808 P.2d 133, 136 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1575 (1985)). Brokmeyer then admitted that his coat in the truck contained drugs. This was confirmed when the officer searched the truck. The officer's observation of the mushroom in the ashtray, coupled with Brokmeyer's admission, established the probable cause necessary for him to conduct that search. SeeState v. Anderson, 910 P.2d 1229, 1236 (Utah 1996) (requiring probable cause and exigent circumstances(1) for a warrantless search).

Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge

1. Because Brokmeyer did not question whether there were exigent circumstances, we do not address that issue.