Opinion ID: 2630631
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: traffic stop of hansen's vehicle

Text: ¶ 6 At approximately 11:15 p.m. on December 11, 1998, Officer Huntington of the Midvale Police Department was driving behind a vehicle driven by Hansen that also contained a passenger. To determine the status of the vehicle, Officer Huntington initiated a computer check. While awaiting the results of the computer check, Officer Huntington observed Hansen make an improper lane change. [1] The computer check then revealed that Hansen's vehicle was uninsured. ¶ 7 At this point, Officer Huntington activated his patrol car's overhead emergency lights. In response, Hansen immediately pulled into the parking lot of a convenience store. Officer Huntington parked directly behind Hansen's vehicle [2] and approached it on foot. ¶ 8 Officer Huntington informed Hansen that he had stopped him for the improper lane change and for lack of insurance. In response, Hansen explained that he could not afford insurance. Officer Huntington then requested and obtained Hansen's license and registration and returned to his patrol car. Hansen and his passenger remained seated in Hansen's vehicle. ¶ 9 While at his patrol car, Officer Huntington ran another computer check, which confirmed that Hansen's driver's license was valid and that Hansen had no outstanding warrants. The computer check took approximately five minutes. ¶ 10 As Officer Huntington returned to Hansen's vehicle, a second officer arrived and parked alongside Officer Huntington's patrol car. The second officer remained by the patrol cars, both of whose overhead emergency lights continued flashing throughout the remainder of the encounter with Hansen. ¶ 11 At the suppression hearing, Officer Huntington testified at length concerning his actions following his return to Hansen's vehicle. On direct, he initially testified that he advised Hansen that he was going to give him a warning about the improper lane change and for not having insurance. When questioned further about this verbal warning, he specifically recalled admonishing Hansen to obtain insurance. He conceded on cross-examination, however, that he could not recall addressing the improper lane change. In its findings of fact, the district court found that Officer Huntington had warned Hansen to obtain insurance, but made no finding regarding whether or not he had issued a warning about the improper lane change. ¶ 12 After verbally warning Hansen to obtain insurance, Officer Huntington returned his license and registration. At this point, he had been detained less than ten minutes. ¶ 13 Upon returning Hansen's documents, the officer asked him if he had any alcohol, drugs, or weapons in his vehicle. When Hansen responded, No, Officer Huntington asked for consent to search the vehicle, even though he admitted on cross-examination that he had no reason to suspect Hansen of having any of these items. The details of this exchange were given at the suppression hearing. ¶ 14 On direct examination, Officer Huntington testified in relevant part as follows: Q. [Prosecutor] Did you tell him he was free to leave [after returning his documents]? A. [Officer Huntington] No. Q. In your view, was he free to leave at that time? A. Yes. Q. And when you asked him for consent, do you recall now exactly how you phrased that? A. It's my practice to ask them for consent by stating, Do you have any alcohol, weapons or drugs in the vehicle? And if they say no, I say, Well do you mind if I check? Q. Do you recall Mr. Hansen responding to your question? A. He did give me consent. Q. Well first, with respect to the question as to whether he had those items in his car. A. No. He said no. . . . . Q. And then you asked, Do you mind if I check? A. [Officer Huntington] Uh-huh. Q. And what was his response to that question? A. He said yes. Q. [Court] Yes, he minded? A. Yes, I could have consent to search. .... Q. [Prosecution] Now, when you asked Mr. Hansen if you could check, what tone of voice did you use? A. Probably the same tone of voice I'm using right now. Q. Well, did you make any promises to him? A. No. Q. Did you threaten him in any way. A. No. Q. Did he ask any questionsdid he ask any questions of you? A. I don't recall. I think they just exited the vehicle. ¶ 15 On cross-examination, defense counsel further questioned Officer Huntington about this exchange with Hansen: Q. [Defense Counsel] Do you recall specifically what you said to him? A. [Officer Huntington]. Not specifically. Q. Do you have any idea? A. I would imagine that I stated: Do you have any alcohol, drugs or weapons in the vehicle? Q. He said no? A. He said no. Do you mind if I check? Q. Okay. A. And then he said yes. Q. [Court] He said? Q. [Defense Counsel] He says yes? A. [Officer Huntington] Yes. Q. [Court] Do you mind if I check and he says yes? A. Well, do you mind if I check and then yes, he gave me consent. Sorry. Q. [Defense Counsel] So you said he gave you consent? A. Yes, he did give me consent. Q. What did he say? .... A. I don't recall exactly other than it was consent. Q. So you don't recall his exact words? A. Not exactly. Q. So are you assuming that he said yes? A. I assume he said yes. .... Q. Nothing more than that? A. He probably could have said, yes, go ahead. Q. But you don't recall him saying that. A. I don't recall. ¶ 16 After this exchange, Officer Huntington asked Hansen and his passenger to exit the vehicle and stand next to the other officer. When Officer Huntington searched the vehicle, he found a marijuana pipe on the floorboard of the driver's area. When questioned, Hansen admitted the object was his. Officer Huntington then arrested him and searched him incident to the arrest. During the search incident to arrest, Officer Huntington discovered methamphetamine.