2013 UT App 90

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH

,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Z ACHARY L. S TEVENS

,

Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20120373

‐ CA

Filed April 11, 2013

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable Darold J. McDade

No. 101400842

Michael D. Esplin, Attorney for Appellant

John E. Swallow and Marian Decker, Attorneys for Appellee

Before J UDGES O RME

, D AVIS

, and M C H UGH

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Zachary L. Stevens entered conditional guilty pleas to four

counts of voyeurism. Stevens appeals the trial court’s denial of his

motion to suppress. We affirm.

¶2 We review a trial court’s factual findings underlying a

decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence for clear

error. See State v. Duran

, 2005 UT App 409, ¶ 10, 131 P.3d 246.

However, “we review ‘the trial court’s conclusions of law based on

such facts under a correctness standard, according no deference to

the trial court’s legal conclusions.’” Id. (quoting State v. Anderson

,

910 P.2d 1229, 1232 (Utah 1996)).State v. Stevens

1. We cite to the current version of the statute. However, the same

operative language was in effect at the time of the search at issue

in this case.

20120373

‐ CA 2013 UT App 90 2 ¶3 Stevens initially argues that the affidavit for a search

warrant was deficient because it failed to comply with Utah Code

section 76

‐ 10

‐ 1212 by not attaching the material that was believed

to be pornographic to the affidavit for review by the magistrate. See

Utah Code Ann. § 76

‐ 10

‐ 1212(1) (LexisNexis 2012) (stating that

“[w]here practical, the material alleged to be pornographic or

harmful to minors shall be attached to the affidavit for search

warrant to afford the magistrate the opportunity to examine the

material”). 1 However, this court has specifically rejected this

argument. See State v. Moore

, 788 P.2d 525, 529 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).

In State v. Moore, we analyzed the operative language of Utah Code

section 76

‐ 10

‐ 1212(1) and concluded that “[t]here is no requirement

. . . that the alleged pornographic material always be attached to the

affidavit in support of the search warrant.

. . . The material need not

be attached if the affidavit allows the magistrate an opportunity to

focus searchingly on the question of obscenity.” Id. (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the only question is

whether the affidavit’s description of the material is sufficiently

detailed to support a finding of probable cause. See id.

¶4 Here, the information contained in the affidavit was

sufficient to support the magistrate’s finding of probable cause. The

affidavit described photographs sent from Stevens to an

undercover officer containing images of “male children exposing

their genitals and/or posing in sexual positions.” Another portion

of the affidavit stated that the materials included “digital

photographs and videos of fully nude or partially nude

prepubescent male children often engaged in sexual positions or

acts (actual or simulated).” These descriptions were sufficient to

allow the magistrate to make his determination concerning

whether probable cause existed.State v. Stevens

20120373

‐ CA 2013 UT App 90 3 ¶5 Stevens next asserts that the search warrant was not

properly executed within ten days of the date the warrant was

issued because officers did not search or examine the contents of

the computers and digital media seized from Stevens’s bedroom

within the ten

‐ day period, even though the items were seized on

the day the warrant was issued. Stevens provides no authority to

support this proposition, nor does he adequately develop this

issue. Accordingly, this argument is inadequately briefed and we

decline to address it. See State v. Bair

, 2012 UT App 106, ¶ 43, 275

P.3d 1050 (“While failure to cite to pertinent authority may not

always render an issue inadequately briefed, it does so when the

overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of

research and argument to the reviewing court.”).

¶6 Affirmed.