American Fork City v. Singleton

American Fork City v. Singleton

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

American Fork City,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Larry J. Singleton,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030530-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 20, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 172

 

-----

Fourth District, American Fork Department

The Honorable Howard H. Maetani

Attorneys: Noall T. Wootton, American Fork, for Appellant

James Tucker Hansen, American Fork, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Thorne.

GREENWOOD, Judge:

    Defendant, Larry Singleton, appeals from a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). We affirm.

    Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to his arrest because there was no probable cause to support his arrest. "This court reviews a trial court's legal determination of probable cause for correctness, affording some discretion to the trial court." Orem City v. Bovo, 2003 UT App 286,¶7, 76 P.3d 1170.

    "A police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for [DUI] when the officer has probable cause to believe the violation has occurred, although not in his presence, and if the officer has probable cause to believe that the violation was committed by the person." Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(10) (Supp. 1999).

"[T]he determination of whether an officer can make a warrantless arrest should be made on an objective standard: whether from the facts known to the officer, and the inferences [that can] fairly . . . be drawn therefrom, a reasonable and prudent person in [the officer's] position would be justified in believing that the suspect had committed the offense."

Bovo, 2003 UT App 286 at ¶14 (second, third, and fourth alterations in original) (quotations and citations omitted).

    Applying this standard to the instant case, it is clear that the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant for DUI. It is undisputed that Defendant was operating a vehicle immediately prior to his encounter with the arresting officer. It is also undisputed that when the arresting officer encountered Defendant, he had "glassy, bloodshot eyes" and "was slightly swaying" as he talked. Finally, it is undisputed that when the officer attempted to perform field sobriety tests in Defendant's house, Defendant became belligerent and refused to cooperate. Therefore, although Defendant was initially arrested for obstruction of justice rather than DUI, his arrest was nonetheless lawful because there was probable cause to arrest him for DUI.

    Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge