State of Utah v. Nish

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Adam Nish,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010295-CA

F I L E D
June 27, 2002 2002 UT App 222 -----

First District, Brigham City Department
The Honorable Ben H. Hadfield

Attorneys:
Dale M. Dorius and Justin C. Bond, Brigham City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Marian Decker, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Thorne.

THORNE, Judge:

Defendant Adam Nish appeals from a conviction for Unlawful Possession of Methamphetamine, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(2)(i) (1998).

Nish argues that the Utah Highway Patrol Trooper (the Trooper), who stopped Nish for running a stop sign and having no front license plate on his vehicle, unlawfully extended the stop or, alternatively, lacked a reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry search.(1)

During oral argument, Nish's counsel argued that the Trooper unreasonably extended both the scope and duration of the traffic stop. However, this argument occupies but a single, conclusory sentence in Nish's appellate brief. In his brief, he also argues, in very summary fashion, that the Trooper lacked a reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry search. Nish accompanies these conclusory statements with a number of block quotes and no legal analysis.

"Without any analysis on the issue [of duration], we fail to see the basis of [Nish's] contention" that the Trooper extended the stop. State v. Vigil, 922 P.2d 15, 25 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (footnote omitted). We have stated repeatedly that "an appellate court is not a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research." Id. (citation and quotations omitted). Merely raising an issue in a brief without any substantive legal analysis does not satisfy the briefing requirement. Accordingly, because Nish failed to clearly address and analyze the issues, we decline to address the duration issue on appeal.

Upon addressing the balance of Nish's claims, however, we find no basis for reversal. The record shows that Nish (1) exited his vehicle and ran toward the Trooper in an "upset" and "excited" manner; (2) had a "large bulge" in his pocket that the Trooper believed could have been a weapon; (3) became more nervous throughout the encounter; and (4) repeatedly put his hands in his pockets after the Trooper instructed him to keep his hands out of his pockets. Further, the Trooper indicated that he believed Nish "was looking for a way to walk around [him]" or "to escape." In all, these "'specific and articulable facts . . . taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant[ed]'" the Trooper's attempt to conduct a Terry search upon Nish. State v. Rochell, 850 P.2d 480, 483 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)).(2)

We therefore affirm Nish's conviction.
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

1. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968).

2. Nish fled before the Trooper could conduct the Terry search.