State v. Timmerman

State v. Timmerman

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Brent W. Timmerman,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20011022-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 16, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 273

 

-----

Second District, Ogden Department, 011903622

The Honorable Stanton M. Taylor

Attorneys: Dee W. Smith, Ogden, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeanne B. Inouye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Jackson.

JACKSON, Judge:

    Brent W. Timmerman (Timmerman) appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 58-37-8(2)(a), -37a-5(1) (2004). We affirm.

    Timmerman argues that Dixon lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him for the warrants check. "'When a case involves the reasonableness of a search and seizure, "we afford little discretion to the district court because there must be state-wide standards that guide law enforcement and prosecutorial officials."'" State v. Chism, 2005 UT App 41,¶9, 107 P.3d 706 (quoting State v. Warren, 2003 UT 36,¶12, 78 P.3d 590) (other citation omitted). This standard is "synonymous" with a "review for 'correctness.'" Id. (quoting State v. Brake, 2004 UT 95,¶15, 103 P.3d 699); see also State v. Markland, 2005 UT 26,¶¶8-9, 523 Utah Adv. Rep. 34 (stating that in an assessment of reasonable suspicion, a district court's application of law to facts is given no deference).

    There is no dispute that it was constitutionally permissible for Dixon to ask Timmerman questions. See Muehler v. Mena, 125 S. Ct. 1465, 1471 (2005) (holding that police questioning alone does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment). We also believe that based on Timmerman's responses, Dixon developed a reasonable suspicion that the truck may have been stolen.

    "[T]he scope of the detention [based upon reasonable suspicion] must be limited to addressing the articulated grounds for the stop." Chism, 2005 UT App 41 at ¶15. "Investigative acts that are not reasonably related to dispelling or resolving the articulated grounds for the stop are permissible only if (i) they do not add to the delay already lawfully experienced and (ii) do not represent any further intrusion on the detainee's rights." Id. (quotations and citation omitted). We conclude that although the additional computer checks added to the length of the detention, the added delay was slight. While the length of delay is not dispositive in the scope of the detention analysis, we believe that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the investigation did not exceed its permissible scope. We affirm the trial court's order denying Timmerman's motion to suppress and his conviction.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

-----

I CONCUR:

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT:

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge