Court Opinion

ID: 9797594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:24:54.076072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:38.139036
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(dissenting).
¶ 28 Two facts, omitted from the main opinion, bear mention. First, the officer ostensibly set about to see if the occupants of the lawfully parked vehicles needed assistance even though nothing in the record suggests a trunk or hood was open, jacks and a spare tire were positioned by either vehicle, or emergency flashers were activated. Second, the officer expressly testified that he elected to open the one vehicle’s front door and retrieve the purse so that he could “make sure that there weren’t any weapons.” 1
¶ 29 Utah law concerning the search of the interior of a vehicle for weapons, in the course of an investigatory stop, is clear. As explained in a series of cases, none of which are cited in the main opinion, an officer may conduct a weapons search only if he “reasonably believes a suspect is dangerous and may obtain immediate control of weapons.” State v. Bradford, 839 P.2d 866, 870 (Utah Ct.App.1992). This regimen also applies to traffic stops, even though they are regarded as potentially dangerous. See id. at 869. Such a search is justified only if “ ‘a reasonably prudent [person] in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety ... was in danger.’ ” State v. Roybal, 716 P.2d 291, 293 (Utah 1986) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). And such a belief can originate in the officer’s contemporaneous observations — either of a weapon or of some furtive movements consistent with retrieval of a weapon — or in the inherent nature of the underlying offense. See State v. Chapman, 921 P.2d 446, 454 (Utah 1996).
¶ 30 Thus, in Bradford, a weapons search was permitted not because of a generalized safety concern or because the intrusion was deemed slight, but because the officer noticed the driver pull a black bag toward the front of the car from an area where the
*37officer earlier observed a rifle. See 839 P.2d at 871. And in State v. Strickling, 844 P.2d 979 (Utah Ct.App.1992), a weapons search was upheld where a vehicle’s occupants were suspected of involvement in a burglary. See id. at 984 (noting “ ‘[i]t is reasonable for an officer to believe that a burglar may be armed with weapons’ ”) (quoting State v. Carter, 707 P.2d 656, 660 (Utah 1985)). Conversely, in reversing this court in Chapman, the Utah Supreme Court held a weapons search was not warranted, even though the suspect was a gang member who had reputedly carried a weapon in the past, where “ ‘[n]othing about the nature of the underlying offense being investigated’ ”■ — i.e., parking on school property after hours— “ ‘prompted a concern for safety ... [and][n]othing defendant did, by way of conduct, attitude, or gesture, suggested the presence of a weapon in the vehicle.’ ” State v. Chapman, 921 P.2d 446, 454 (Utah 1996) (quoting State v. Chapman, 841 P.2d 725, 732 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (Orme, J., dissenting)).
¶ 31 Applying the correct legal doctrine to this case, rather than the jurisprudence which has developed concerning law enforcement’s entitlement to ascertain a vehicle identification number, leads to the opposite result from that reached by the majority. The officer did not see any weapons, nor does the record suggest he observed any furtive movements or other conduct consistent with the retrieval or presence of a weapon. And nothing about a motorist possibly needing assistance, or even underage driving, by its very nature suggests the presence of weapons. It follows that the officer was not entitled to search even part of the interior of the vehicle for weapons while conducting his investigation of possible underage driving, and that all evidence found as a result of that search should have been suppressed.

. As pointed out in footnote 5 of the main opinion, the officer's purpose — to "make sure that there weren't any weapons” — was not disclosed to the occupants of the vehicle. Contraiy to the claim in that footnote, however, the officer candidly admitted this was his purpose in entering the vehicle and retrieving the purse himself — this is not something I have created from whole cloth. The officer satisfied himself that there were no weapons in the area where he located the purse. It is true he did not search tire purse, but at that point in time he had seen the bindle and the focus of the encounter had therefore dramatically changed. Moreover, the record does not disclose the size, shape, or weight of the purse. It is entirely possible the officer did not search the purse only because its size, shape, and weight were inconsistent with the possibility it contained a firearm.