Last week the Utah Supreme Court handed down its decision in State v. Morris. The Supreme Court took the decision on certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision earlier in the year. The basic facts in Morris are that the officer stopped Morris because Morris appeared to be driving a car without valid license plate. When stopped, it became clear that the car has a proper temproary license in the back window. The reason for the stop therefore evaporated. The officer went to the car to explain why he had stopped Morris and tell him to go on his way. When the window was opened, the officer smelled acohol, proceeded to collect license, etc., and sobriety tests, resulting in arrest, search and furter charges. The Court of Appeals held that once the reason for the stop evaporated, the officer shoud have moved on without futher interaction (no basis for approaching to explain and tell the drier to go on). The Supreme Court reversed.
The key holding of the Supreme Court is at the end of paragraph 25 where it says the officer may approach to explain the situation but must not pose questions or collect documents unless the limited interaction of explanation gives rise to a new reasonable suspicion. Here is what they say:
Therefore, we hold that when an officer makes a
traffic stop based on an objectively reasonable, albeit mistake,
suspicion that a driver is in violation of a traffic law, it is
constitutionally reasonable for the officer to approach the driver and
explain his mistake. Although the officer is entitled to offer an
explanation, we also hold that the officer may not ask for
identification, registration, or proof of insurance at this time unless
during this brief encounter, new reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity immediately arises that justifies further detention. And if
further reasonable suspicion arises, we reiterate that the scope of the
stop is still limited and officers must diligently pursue a means of
investigation that expediently confirms or dispels their regained
suspicion.
I have some sympathy for the effort to figure this out. It would be very odd experience to be stopped and then have the police move on without a word. (I have been stopped and then told it was a mistake -- an explanation I found quite dubious as it was full daylight and the officer claimed she thought I was someone else (whom she thought she recognized from 50 feet behind the car?) -- different concerns, but I raise the point to illustrate that there are problems either way.) One reaction is that the decision is an invitation to police to make sham 'mistake' stops and see what they can get in the initial conversation. The problem is that the incentive is there in any event and just moves a bit in time. Unless the recording equipment is remarkably good, all of these cases get decided on police credibility, and defendants will lose almost all of those disputes. Partly a result of institutional problems. And because they should, truth be told.
A final little niggle --
we reiterate that the scope of the
stop is still limited and officers must diligently pursue a means of
investigation that expediently confirms or dispels their regained
suspicion.
The reads to me as a misuse of the word "expdiently" -- 'appropriate to the end' does nto look like the right standard. I would have epected something like expeditiously, something indicating a littl emore alacrity in completion, because the purpose here is investigation of crime and there needs to be some indication of limit on the scope of investigation.
Comments