Can I beat a DUI charge or drug possession charge on a “pretext stop” in Utah?
Short history lesson here: Up until the 1990’s, Utah DUI defense and drug crimes attorneys could get a lot of mileage out of the idea of a “pretext stop.”
The idea was that if a police officer used a very minor traffic violation as a “pretext” to pull a driver over, but the officer’s real purpose was to investigate some other crime, then a motion to suppress could be filed to keep out any evidence that the officer had found as a result of this “pretext stop.”
The best criminal defense attorneys insist on fair courtroom procedures that respect clients’ rights.
It provided good grounds for defense suppression motions, and it was nice while it lasted…. But new rules apply now.
Would a “reasonable” police officer make the stop?
The “pretext stop” analysis formerly engaged in by Utah courts and some federal courts looked at whether a reasonable Utah police officer would have pulled a driver over for the kind of traffic violation involved. For example, there are very few officers who ordinarily pull drivers over for going one mph over the speed limit.
But if an officer saw a vehicle and driver that matched a “profile” of a typical drug dealer, or saw a vehicle just pulling out from a bar’s parking lot, then the officer might be inclined to go out of his way to pull the driver over for going just one mph too fast. On the theory that the stop was based on an improper police motive to get into the car to search for drugs, and the traffic violation was used merely as a “pretext” for allowing the officer to search the car, the court could suppress any evidence found during the resulting search.
A good attorney will talk with you about how your case can affect your job, education, family, and future.
Once the evidence was suppressed, the entire case would usually be dismissed.
Supreme Court Case Law Reversal
But that was then, and this is now. The “pretext stop” doctrine was overturned in Utah by the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127 (Utah 1994). Two years later, the United States Supreme Court also rejected the pretext-stop doctrine in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S 806, 135 L.Ed.2d 89, 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996).
Materials are can still be found on the internet that discuss ways to use a pretext stop to win a criminal case. However, these materials typically are from outdated sources, or have been posted by individuals who have not kept up with changes in the law.
A good defense strategy should be designed to help you achieve your goals.
Under current case law, a police officer may be constitutionally justified in stopping a vehicle even for minor violations of the traffic code. But there the Fourth Amendment still places limits on how far an officer may extend the scope of the stop. If a driver is stopped for a minor traffic violation, an officer does not have automatic grounds for searching the vehicle or even for questioning the driver about other possible violations or crimes.