Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and it came back that there might be a warrant for him. Under state practice, the police then seek confirmation of the warrant before acting on it. Here, however, defendant was frisked incident to that and a baggie of methamphetamine was found on him. Then the warrant came back as still outstanding and there was a second search finding another. The attenuation doctrine doesn’t apply to the first but it does to the second, so the first is suppressed and the second isn’t. On appeal, the state argued search incident, but that was waived by not raising it below. The court also rejects inevitable discovery. State v. Fairchild, 2018 Ida. App. LEXIS 10 (Mar. 7, 2018).
“[P2] When officers stopped Binks’s vehicle, they had at least reasonable suspicion to investigate two traffic violations and possible drug possession. And when the officers approached the vehicle they gained reasonable suspicion of another offense—driving under the influence. The officers were entitled under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), to detain Binks for a reasonable time while they investigated these offenses. We affirm on that basis without reaching the other two grounds asserted by the State for defending the search—that police were justified in searching Binks based on the warrant for the apartment Binks had just visited and that Binks was within the vicinity of the residence covered by the search warrant and thus a proper subject of the warrant under Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013).” State v. Binks, 2018 UT 11, 2018 Utah LEXIS 33 (Mar. 7, 2018).*