UT: State constitutional arguments need to be separately addressed

Defendant’s stop and search of his vehicle were based on probable cause, so the vehicle search was valid under the automobile exception. Defendant conflated the state constitutional argument with the Fourth Amendment argument. If one wants the state constitutional issue decided, it needs to be separately addressed both in the trial court and the appellate briefs. State v. Butler, 2011 UT App 281, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 294 (August 25, 2011):

Because Defendant does not make any separate arguments under the Utah Constitution, we consider his appeal only under the protections afforded by the United States Constitution. See State v. Worwood, 2007 UT 47, ¶¶ 14, 18, 164 P.3d 397 (determining that the greater protections provided by the Utah Constitution will only be addressed if the argument is properly preserved in the trial court and separately briefed on appeal); State v. Despain, 2007 UT App 367, ¶ 12, 173 P.3d 213 (“In the absence of separate and distinct argument under the Utah Constitution, we consider [the d]efendant’s claims only under the Federal Constitution.”).

I’ve read about a dozen cases stating this proposition from around the country, but haven’t mentioned many of them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.