State v. Ware

State v. Ware

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Willie David Ware,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030411-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 10, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 194

 

-----

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Ernest W. Jones

Attorneys: Dee W. Smith, Ogden, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeffrey S. Gray, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Orme.

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge:

Willie Ware (Defendant) appeals his conviction for (1) possession of a controlled substance, a third degree felony; (2) possession of drug paraphernalia, a class B misdemeanor; (3) open container in a vehicle, a class C misdemeanor; (4) interference with an arresting officer, a class B misdemeanor; and (5) failure to signal, a class C misdemeanor. We affirm.

Defendant argues that his convictions were based upon evidence obtained by an illegal seizure and subsequent illegal searches. Specifically, Defendant argues that (1) he was illegally detained during an initially legitimate traffic stop and (2) the subsequent searches of Defendant and his vehicle were unlawful.(1)

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.(2) See U.S. Const. amend. IV. Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1131 (Utah 1994). We consider two factors to determine whether a traffic stop was a reasonable seizure: (1) whether "the police officer's action [was] justified at its inception," and (2) whether "the resulting detention [was] reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place." State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125,¶29, 63 P.3d 650.

In this case, Defendant concedes that the traffic stop was justified at inception. Also, based upon the officers' testimony, Defendant's unusual behavior provided reasonable suspicion of further illegality before the officers fulfilled the purpose of the initial stop.(3) Items recovered from Defendant based upon his responses to questions, together with "track marks" on Defendant's arm, justified the officers' inquiry regarding the presence of drugs or syringes in the vehicle. Also, because an open container of alcohol was in plain view, it was proper to arrest Defendant. Thus, the subsequent search of the vehicle that uncovered methamphetamine was justified as a search incident to arrest and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The totality of the circumstances justify the seizure and searches conducted by the officers. Therefore, the trial court did not err by refusing to exclude the evidence obtained from the seizure and searches. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

-----

I CONCUR:

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

I DISSENT:

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the facts "in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling." State v. Ziegleman, 905 P.2d 883, 884 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).

2. Although Defendant purports to challenge the seizure and subsequent searches under both the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution, Defendant does not argue that the protection they afford differs. Thus, our review considers only whether the relevant actions by officers exceeded the scope of the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97,¶21 n.2, 57 P.3d 1052.

3. Absent Defendant's unusual behavior, the officers likely had no grounds to ask Defendant whether he had any guns, knives, or drugs. See State v. Schlosser, 774 P.2d 1132, 1138 (Utah 1989) (stating that the mere fact a driver gets out of the vehicle, without other unusual or suspicious behavior, does not provide reasonable suspicion of further illegality).