State of Utah v. Reid

Annotate this Case
State v. Reid. Filed June 4, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

James P. Reid,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 971382-CA

F I L E D
June 4, 1999
  1999 UT App 182 -----

Fourth District, Provo Department
The Honorable Lynn W. Davis

Attorneys:
Randall K. Spencer, Provo, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Kenneth A. Bronston, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Wilkins, Davis, and Jackson.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle during an administrative traffic stop established pursuant to the Administrative Traffic Checkpoint Act set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-101 to -105 (1995) (the Act). We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The only issue on appeal that need be addressed is whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable to a search conducted pursuant to a roadblock authorized under the Act, which search violates the authorizing statutes and constitutional protections. This court's recent opinion in State v. Deherrera, 965 P.2d 501 (Utah Ct. App. 1998), answers this query in the negative.

In Deherrera, this court distinguished the case from those in which the United States Supreme Court applied the good faith exception, noting, among other things, that the good faith exception does not protect evidence discovered during a search that is conducted pursuant to a plan developed by law enforcement personnel that violates the very statute relied upon by the personnel as authority for the plan. See Deherrera, 965 P.2d at 504-05.

Absent application of an exception to the rule, the exclusionary rule requires exclusion of all evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search. See id. (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961)). There is no dispute that the search of appellant's vehicle was unconstitutional. Consequently, all evidence obtained subsequent thereto must be suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Accordingly, the district court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum decision.
 
 
 

______________________________
Michael J. Wilkins,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Judge