Opinion ID: 2602415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: application of pena-flores to this case

Text: ¶ 17 In this case, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, relying on American Fork City v. Pena-Flores, 2000 UT App 323, 14 P.3d 698, as controlling precedent and concluding that the officers properly arrested Trane under the interfering statute. State v. Trane, 2000 UT App 360U, at 2. The court of appeals explained, Under Pena-Flores, an arrest for interfering with a peace officer is valid `[s]o long as [(1)] a police officer is acting within the scope of his or her authority and [(2)] the detention or arrest has the indicia of being lawful.' Trane, 2000 UT App 360U, at 2 (alterations in original) (quoting Pena-Flores, 2000 UT App 323 at ¶ 11, 14 P.3d 698). Trane contends that the court of appeals wrongly decided Pena-Flores, and even if it did not, the court of appeals erred in blindly applying Pena-Flores to this case. However, we do not need to decide whether Pena-Flores was wrongly decided because that case is inapplicable to the instant case. ¶ 18 The issue in Pena-Flores was whether the interfering statute, section 76-8-305 of the Utah Code, required a lawful arrest or detention. 2000 UT App 323 at ¶ 10, 14 P.3d 698 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-305 (1999)). In the instant case, Trane contends that the language of subsection two of the interfering statute applies only when an arrest or a detention is lawful. Specifically, Trane contends that because the interfering statute requires a lawful arrest or detention, the officers could not legally arrest him under the interfering statute for resistance to an unlawful order. ¶ 19 Although Trane's argument is substantially similar to the issue in Pena-Flores, the case is inapposite. Pena-Flores specifically addressed when a person can be guilty of interfering with a peace officer under section 76-8-305. 2000 UT App 323 at ¶ 11, 14 P.3d 698 (emphasis added). In this case, Trane was never convicted of violating the interfering statute. The actual issue in this case is whether the officers had authority and probable cause to arrest Trane under the interfering statute. Pena-Flores is limited to whether an individual can be convicted of violating the interfering statute and does not apply when the court is attempting to determine whether officers lawfully arrested an individual for allegedly violating the interfering statute. Nevertheless, because the decision of the court of appeals may be sustainable as a search incident to arrest, we now turn to that issue. See Bailey v. Bayles, 2002 UT 58, ¶ 10, 52 P.3d 1158 (holding that appellate court can affirm lower court if judgment is sustainable on alternate theory readily apparent from record).