State v. Bartlett

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

James Earl Bartlett,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030063-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 8, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 103

-----

Seventh District, Monticello Department

The Honorable Lyle R. Anderson

Attorneys: William L. Schultz, Moab, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and J. Frederic Voros Jr., Salt Lake City, and Craig C. Halls, Blanding, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Orme.

JACKSON, Judge:

Appellant James Earl Bartlett challenges the district court's ruling that the arresting officers' search of his car was incident to a lawful arrest. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. See State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 855 (Utah 1992). Under this provision, "[w]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless undertaken pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." Id. "One such recognized exception is a search incident to a lawful arrest based upon probable cause under exigent circumstances." State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97,¶22, 57 P.3d 1052. "'[A] search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.'" Id. at ¶23 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S. Ct. 467, 477 (1973)). "A search of an automobile and its occupants pursuant to lawful arrest [is] proper even for a misdemeanor arrest." State v. Moreno, 910 P.2d 1245, 1249 (Utah Ct. App. 1996).

Here, Bartlett concedes that the initial stop was valid. Further, Bartlett was placed under arrest pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, the search was contemporaneous with the arrest, and the search was of the passenger compartment of the automobile. The arresting officers thus needed no more justification to search the car, and the search was valid.

Bartlett's only argument that could be read to confront the search incident to arrest doctrine is that the officers had an alternative to searching the car--specifically, the officers could have turned the car over to Bartlett's mother, who was present at the time. Bartlett's entire argument on this point consists of the statement that "[t]here was no need to search Bartlett's vehicle since it could have been released to his mother."

Bartlett has not offered any legal authority for the proposition that the presence of parties who are not implicated in any criminal activity negates the authority of the arresting officers to search the vehicle. Absent any legitimate ground upon which to reverse the district court's ruling regarding the validity of the search, we affirm.(1)

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. Notwithstanding the State's briefing of whether Bartlett received proper warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), we decline to address the issue, which Bartlett seems not to have raised on appeal.