Opinion
Case No. 20031028-CA.
Filed March 3, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department, The Honorable Roger S. Dutson.
Catherine S. Conklin, Ogden, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Joanne C. Slotnik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Davis.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Azer Franklin Bills (Defendant) appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his arrest because the arrest was not supported by probable cause. "This court reviews a trial court's legal determination of probable cause for correctness, affording some discretion to the trial court." Orem City v. Bovo, 2003 UT App 286, ¶ 7, 76 P.3d 1170.
Section 77-7-2 of the Utah Code, in part, sets forth the relevant circumstances under which a law enforcement officer may effectuate an arrest:
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(1) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
(2) when he has reasonable cause to believe a felony or a class A misdemeanor has been committed and has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it. . . .
Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-2(1), (2) (2003). The determination of whether a law enforcement officer had reasonable cause, or probable cause as explained by some Utah cases, see State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97, ¶ 27, 57 P.3d 1052, to arrest someone without a warrant "should be made on an objective standard: whether from the facts known to the officer, and the inferences which fairly might be drawn therefrom, a reasonable and prudent person in his position would be justified in believing that the suspect had committed the offense," State v. Hatcher, 27 Utah 2d 318, 495 P.2d 1259, 1260 (1972). Moreover, "[a] law enforcement officer has probable cause whenever the crime is committed in the presence of that officer because the observing officer knows of sufficient facts to believe that the suspect committed the crime alleged." Trane, 2002 UT 97 at ¶ 28.
We conclude that Agent Ryan Read's warrantless arrest of Defendant was supported by probable cause. On July 1, 2002, Agent Read supervised a controlled marijuana buy between a confidential informant (CI) and Defendant. Although Agent Read was unable to see the drugs being passed from Defendant to CI, he did observe the entire encounter. Shortly following the meeting between Defendant and CI, CI met with law enforcement officers and gave them the marijuana she had purchased from Defendant. Later, on September 17, 2002, Agent Read saw a vehicle that he recognized as the vehicle involved in the July 1 drug buy. Agent Read requested a license plate check, and dispatch confirmed to him that the car was registered to Defendant. Agent Read stopped the vehicle, which he believed was being driven by the individual involved in the drug buy, and arrested Defendant for the sale of marijuana to CI. We conclude that from the facts known to Agent Read, "a reasonable and prudent person in his position would be justified in believing that [Defendant] had committed the offense." Hatcher, 495 P.2d at 1260.
Defendant argues that even if probable cause initially existed, it was stale by the time Defendant was arrested. Defendant incorrectly applies the staleness doctrine to this case, and the cases cited by Defendant in support of this argument are inapposite. The information constituting Agent Read's probable cause was not at risk of becoming outdated.
We rely on the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact.
Defendant asserts that the initial stop of his vehicle constituted an illegal seizure because it was unsupported by probable cause. The September 17, 2002 stop was permissible because when Agent Read spotted Defendant's vehicle, he had probable cause to arrest Defendant for the July 1, 2002 drug sale to CI. The fact that Defendant was in a vehicle at the time he was apprehended is irrelevant to our analysis.
Having determined that Agent Read had probable cause to arrest Defendant, we conclude Agent Read's subsequent search was valid pursuant to a lawful arrest. See In re K.K.C., 636 P.2d 1044, 1046 (Utah 1981) ("One of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement justifies warrantless searches and seizures incident to a lawful arrest."). Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of Defendant's arrest.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge.