Background
The Utah Supreme Court reversed an order suppressing evidence gathered when officers executed two daytime-only warrants at night. The court did not excuse the violation of rule 40(e)(1) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. Instead, it held that a rule violation alone is not enough to trigger exclusion. Under the court’s precedents, suppression is available only when the violation also infringes constitutional rights, reflects intentional bad faith, or substantially prejudices the defendant.
Police stopped Anthony Ernesto Jaramillo for a traffic violation, smelled marijuana, and searched the vehicle. They found drugs and a gun. Information from Jaramillo’s passenger led officers to seek warrants to search a home for evidence of drug dealing and to obtain Jaramillo’s blood and DNA. The applying officer intended to request nighttime service but omitted the request, so the warrants authorized execution only between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Officers nevertheless executed both at night.
The district court found no malicious intent and recognized that a magistrate likely would have authorized nighttime execution had officers asked. It also found that the searches were peaceful and nonconfrontational. Even so, it suppressed the evidence because the magistrate had never made the nighttime-necessity determination required by the rule. The State took an interlocutory appeal, and the case reached the supreme court on certification.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Nielsen’s opinion read State v. Fixel and State v. Rowe as establishing a three-part remedial boundary. Evidence obtained through a rule-violating search may be excluded when the violation is constitutional and therefore fundamental; when the search caused substantial prejudice because it would not have occurred or would have been less abrasive absent the violation; or when police deliberately disregarded the rule in bad faith. A court may not impose suppression simply to remedy noncompliance with the procedural rule.
The district court’s own findings foreclosed two of those paths. It found no bad faith and effectively found no substantial prejudice, acknowledging both the likelihood of authorization and the uneventful execution. It never held that the searches violated the Fourth Amendment or article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution. The supreme court declined to decide those constitutional questions as alternative grounds in the interlocutory posture. It reversed and remanded so further proceedings can occur under the proper standard.
Key Takeaways
- A nighttime-service violation under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 40(e)(1) does not automatically require exclusion.
- Suppression requires a constitutional infringement, substantial prejudice, or an intentional and deliberate rule violation by police.
- Trial courts should make explicit remedial findings; recognizing a rule violation is distinct from identifying a legal basis for suppression.
Why It Matters
For Utah criminal litigators, Jaramillo sharply separates the existence of a procedural violation from the remedy. Defense counsel seeking exclusion should develop evidence on intrusion, prejudice, intent, and independent state or federal constitutional grounds. Prosecutors should not treat the decision as permission to ignore warrant limits; they still must establish why the particular violation falls outside each suppression category.
The ruling also leaves the underlying constitutional issues open. On remand, Jaramillo may pursue arguments that the nighttime searches were unreasonable under the federal or Utah constitutions. Future warrant litigation will likely focus less on the clerical mistake itself and more on what officers knew, whether the nighttime entry increased the invasion, and whether valid authorization would actually have issued.