UT: No collateral estoppel from federal Fourth Amendment claim where state constitution interpreted more broadly

Since Utah’s search and seizure provision is not interpreted as narrowly as the Fourth Amendment, a federal claim over the same act is not collateral estoppel to a state constitutional claim. Jensen v. Cunningham, 2011 UT 17, 679 Utah Adv. Rep. 18, 250 P.3d 465 (2011):

[*P49] Without an analysis of the independent protections afforded by our state constitution, the state district court dismissed the Jensens’ state law claims because a federal court found that the undisputed material facts did not give rise to a federal constitutional violation. This was error. Because the state and federal standards for determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to damages for a constitutional violation are different, a federal court determination that the material undisputed facts do not give rise to a federal constitutional violation does not preclude a state court from deciding whether those same facts will give rise to a state constitutional violation. Therefore, the state district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants solely on the basis of collateral estoppel was in error.

An officer responding to a robbery call where the robber fled on foot stopped a nearby vehicle for speeding which emerged from nearby the scene of the robbery. On stopping the car, the passenger fit the description of the robber, and that gave reasonable suspicion to get the passenger out. The stop of the car was also with reasonable suspicion because of its proximity to the robbery and appearing from nearby so soon after the robbery. United States v. Robinson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32472 (E.D. Tenn. February 4, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.