NCJ Number
139996
Journal
Journal of Contemporary Law Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Dated: (1992) Pages: 107- 130
Date Published
1992
Length
24 pages
Annotation
The rule announced by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Arroyo meets the demands of justice and preserves the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in cases in which a consent search occurs following illegal police conduct.
Abstract
The court held that a consent search is valid after an unconstitutional pretext traffic stop only if the consent is voluntary and is not obtained through the exploitation of the police's illegal action. This two-prong test helps protect an individual's fourth amendment rights. In future consent search cases, the trial court must first determine whether the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The court should therefore consider the youth of the accused, the lack of education, the possibility of low intelligence, whether the accused was advised of constitutional rights, the length of detention, the nature of the questioning, and the use of any physical punishment. After examining these and other factors, the court must determine whether the consent is the fruit of the prior illegality. Here, the court must consider the timing of the illegality and the consent, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and extent of police misconduct. By considering these factors and requiring that such searches be both voluntary and free from exploitation of the primary illegality, the court will ensure respect for fourth amendment rights. Footnotes