{"id":64534,"date":"2026-07-27T00:02:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T05:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64534"},"modified":"2026-07-26T22:24:20","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T03:24:20","slug":"ut-failure-to-include-nighttime-search-request-in-sw-in-violation-of-rule-didnt-require-suppression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=64534","title":{"rendered":"UT: Failure to include nighttime search request in SW in violation of rule didn’t require suppression"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Officers applied for a search warrant that should have been for a nighttime search but omitted that, and that violated a state rule. If they\u2019d sought permission for a nighttime search they likely would have gotten it. The trial court suppressed solely because of the rule violation. Reversed. There\u2019s a three-factor test: \u201ca violation of our criminal procedure rules requires suppression in only three circumstances: where (1) the rule violation also violates the federal Constitution; (2) the officer acts in bad faith; or (3) the warrant would not have been granted\u2014or execution would have been less abrasive\u2014had the rule been complied with.\u201d The rule violation was for none of these. State v. Jaramillo<\/a>, 2026 UT 20, 2026 Utah LEXIS 105 (July 23, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHere, the officers did not prolong the traffic stop beyond its lawful purpose. They took Risper’s license, asked him where he was going, and asked him to step out of his vehicle and for consent to pat him down\u2014all permissible requests. \u2026 The officer’s request for him to step away from his door was permissible too, because this request promoted the same safety concerns which allowed the officer to ask him to exit the vehicle in the first place.\u201d United States v. Risper, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 21840 (6th Cir. July 21, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Officers applied for a search warrant that should have been for a nighttime search but omitted that, and that violated a state rule. If they\u2019d sought permission for a nighttime search they likely would have gotten it. The trial court … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,80,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-faith-exception","category-nighttime-search","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64534","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=64534"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64535,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64534\/revisions\/64535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=64534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=64534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=64534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}