UT: When two grounds support an arrest, attacking only one means affirmance

“Devenpeck, along with Utah appellate law, is controlling here. Whether Officer possessed probable cause to arrest Sanchez for DUI is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the objective circumstances—the ‘known facts,’ see Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153—provided probable cause for Sanchez’s arrest. Officer’s ‘subjective reason for arresting’ Sanchez—the belief that Sanchez was driving while intoxicated—‘does not undermine the district court’s conclusion that the arrest was nevertheless constitutional’ on the ground that Officer had probable cause to arrest Sanchez for failure to stop. See State v. McLeod, 2018 UT App 52, ¶ 17, 424 P.3d 1039. And Sanchez does not address this alternative ground identified by the district court for denying his motion to suppress. To the contrary, he admits on appeal that the district court correctly reasoned that Officer could have arrested him for failure to stop. An appellate court “will not reverse a ruling of the district court that rests on independent alternative grounds where the appellant challenges only one of those grounds.’” State v. Sanchez, 2020 UT App 158, 2020 Utah App. LEXIS 160 (Nov. 20, 2020).

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.