State of Utah v. Cardinal

Annotate this Case
State v. Cardinal. Filed February 10, 2000 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Lawrence J. Cardinal,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981641-CA

F I L E D
February 10, 2000
  2000 UT App 026 -----

Fourth District, Nephi Department
The Honorable Ray M. Harding, Sr.

Attorneys:
G. Fred Metos, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Catherine M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Jackson, and Wilkins.(1)

BENCH, Judge:

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in determining that Sergeant Mangelson's brief "whiff" of marijuana and defendant's extremely nervous behavior(2) "justified further detention and investigation" because they "raised the officer's suspicion that Defendant was engaged in more serious criminal activity." Defendant next argues that the consent to search his vehicle was not voluntary, even though his response to Sergeant Mangelson's request for consent to search the vehicle was "I guess, if you want." Although the trial court did not enter a conclusion of law on the consent issue, it found that "[d]efendant consented to a search of the driver and passenger compartments, but when asked to open the trunk, [he] refused."

The trial court's rulings on the foregoing issues appear to be correct. However, we need not reach them because the smell of marijuana--no matter how faint the "whiff"--gave Sergeant Mangelson probable cause to search defendant's vehicle. See, e.g., State v. Wright, 977 P.2d 505, 507 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) ("'It is well settled that the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle establishes probable cause for the warrantless search of that vehicle.'") (citation omitted). "Because we determine that the trooper had probable cause . . . we need not address the reasonable suspicion argument." State v. Dudley, 847 P.2d 424, 426 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). Additionally, "we need not reach the consent issue because we affirm the convictions on the ground that the odor of marijuana provided not only reasonable suspicion to prolong detention, but also probable cause to search the vehicle." Id. at 426 n.1. "It is well-settled that an appellate court may affirm a trial court's ruling on any proper grounds, even though the trial court relied on some other ground." DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 444 (Utah 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court on the basis that Sergeant Mangelson's detection of the odor of marijuana gave him probable cause to search defendant's vehicle.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Michael J. Wilkins, Judge

1. Utah Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Wilkins sitting by special appointment pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-7-9.5 (1996); Utah Code Jud. Admin. R3-108(3).

2. Defendant incorrectly asserts that "[c]ourts are to give no weight to nervous behavior." Nervousness may "be considered in conjunction with other relevant and objective facts" when determining whether probable cause exists. State v. Yoder, 935 P.2d 534, 541 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.