Summary
The Supreme Court of Utah held that a magistrate violated Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 40(i)(1) by failing to retain and seal the warrant and supporting materials for a telephonic blood-draw warrant. The court nevertheless reversed the Utah Court of Appeals' suppression ruling, concluding that suppression was not required because the defendant did not show that the violation affected his substantial rights, resulted from police misconduct, or prejudiced his ability to challenge probable cause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate's failure to retain and seal the warrant and supporting materials violated Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 40(i)(1).
- Whether the Rule 40(i)(1) violation violated the Fourth Amendment or otherwise required suppression of the blood-draw evidence.
- Whether suppression was required under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(a) when Dominguez showed no prejudice or impairment of substantial rights.
Holdings
- The telephonic search warrant was not issued in compliance with Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 40(i)(1) because the magistrate failed to retain and seal the warrant, application, and supporting affidavit or recorded testimony.
- The Rule 40(i)(1) retention requirement is a prophylactic state rule, not a requirement of federal constitutional magnitude, and the magistrate's violation did not require suppression under the Fourth Amendment.
- Suppression was not appropriate because Dominguez failed to show that the Rule 40(i)(1) violation affected his substantial rights or created a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result.
Key quotations
“Because Rule 40 draws no distinction between telephonic and in-person warrants and because the magistrate did not retain any warrant materials, the warrant in this case was not issued in compliance with the retention requirement of Rule 40(i)(1).” (¶ 16)
“The retention requirement of our Rule 40 is a prophylactic rule of this court's making, not a universal requirement of federal constitutional magnitude.” (¶ 19)
“Considering the uncontested facts provided in Trooper Turley's affidavit, "there is no reasonable likelihood the result would have been different" had the magistrate complied with the retention requirement of Rule 40(i)(1).” (¶ 22)
“The magistrate's Rule 40(i)(1) violation does not require suppression in this case under federal or state law.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Chris Turley stopped William Dominguez shortly after 1:00 a.m. for racing with another vehicle and observed bloodshot, glassy eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol. Dominguez had an alcohol-related license revocation, refused a portable breath test and field sobriety tests, and was arrested. A magistrate issued a telephonic warrant authorizing a blood draw, but did not retain a copy of the warrant, affidavit, or other application materials; the officer retained them instead.
Procedural history
After his arrest for suspected driving under the influence, Dominguez moved to suppress the results of a blood draw because the issuing magistrate failed to retain copies of the warrant and supporting materials as required by Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 40(i)(1). The district court denied the motion, and Dominguez entered a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed and ordered suppression; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals.