State v. Sorenson

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Paul Sorenson,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030496-CA
 

F I L E D
(October 28, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 381

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable Fred D. Howard

Attorneys: Shelden R. Carter, Provo, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Marian Decker, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Orme.

JACKSON, Judge:

Paul Sorenson appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence contained on a computer seized from his home. We affirm.

The trial court determined that the police officers had properly searched and seized Sorenson's computer because (1) Sorenson had consented to the officers' initial search of the computer; (2) the officers properly seized the computer without a warrant due to exigent circumstances; and (3) the officers properly complied with Utah Code section 77-23-205 in serving and executing a warrant to search the computer within the required ten-day period.

We agree with the State that the first two determinations are sufficient to deny Sorenson's motion to suppress. It is well established that law enforcement officers may circumvent the warrant requirement when they have procured consent from the suspect, see e.g., State v. Bisner, 2001 UT 99,¶43, 37 P.3d 1073, or when faced with exigent circumstances such as the possible destruction or removal of evidence, see e.g., State v. Ashe, 745 P.2d 1255, 1258 (Utah 1987) (noting that no warrant is required when "evidence might be destroyed or removed if entry was delayed until a warrant could be obtained"). Sorenson does not challenge these determinations on appeal and, accordingly, we find no reason to reverse the trial court's denial of Sorenson's motion to suppress.

Sorenson only challenges the trial court's third determination, claiming that the officers failed to execute the warrant within the ten days prescribed by Utah Code section 77-23-205. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-205(2) (2003).(1) Given that the officers were not required to secure a warrant, Sorenson's

challenge is irrelevant. We affirm.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. Because Utah Code section 77-23-205(2) has not been amended since the time Sorenson was charged, we cite to the most recent version for convenience.