Court Opinion

ID: 9570359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:22:37.015575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:58.060233
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring):
I join the majority in concluding that under relevant United States Supreme Court decisions, the inventory search conducted here was permissible.
However, I would specifically note that the defendant has not challenged this search under article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution. As I noted in my separate opinion in State v. Hygh, 711 P.2d 264, 271-72 (Utah 1985) (Zimmerman, J., concurring), much of the existing federal fourth amendment warrantless search and seizure law is rather Kafkaesque, consisting as it does of
rules built upon a series of contradictory and confusing rationalizations and distinctions. Police officers and judges attempting to make their way through this labyrinth often imperil both the rights of individuals and the integrity and effectiveness of law enforcement.
Id. at 272. Nothing has occurred within the almost two years since Hygh to dissuade me from this view. And I include within the sweep of this condemnation the rules governing warrantless automobile searches, such as occurred in the present case. The notion that anything on wheels can be searched by an officer who, after the fact, can offer some reasonable justification for having done so
essentially guts the fourth amendment’s warrant requirement as it pertains to automobile searches. There is little reason to believe that effective law enforcement requires this sacrifice of the interests protected by the warrant requirement.
Id. 272 n. 1 (citations omitted). Were this case argued on state constitutional grounds, I might well find the search unlawful.
I join the majority in rejecting the remainder of the defendant’s contentions. The conviction is appropriately affirmed.
DURHAM, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of Justice ZIMMERMAN.