Background
Late one winter evening in Cedar City, a detective observed a vehicle crossing lane lines and stopping erratically in an intersection. Officers initiated a traffic stop. The two occupants—including Christopher Saunders, a passenger—appeared nervous, and neither produced a rental agreement for the car. When the detective returned to the vehicle a second time, dispatch informed him that Saunders was under Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) supervision.
Back at the car, the detective noticed that the occupants had started smoking. He saw an open cigarette pack on Saunders’s lap with a small, rolled plastic baggie protruding from under the pack’s open lid. The baggie appeared to contain a white crystalline substance. Based on his narcotics-investigation training—and knowing that drug users commonly conceal narcotics in cigarette packs and package them in small plastic baggies—the detective believed the baggie held methamphetamine or another controlled substance. He ordered Saunders out of the vehicle; officers found two syringes in his jacket pocket. The baggie was seized and field-tested, but the methamphetamine test came back negative, and a cocaine test was inconclusive because only a minute amount of residue was present.
Saunders was charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. He moved to suppress, arguing that the baggie’s incriminating nature was not “immediately apparent” because the later field tests were negative or inconclusive, and that the detective’s missing body camera footage undermined his credibility. Notably, the detective was wearing a body camera during the stop, but it was not recording when he spotted the baggie. The district court denied the motion after finding the detective credible. Saunders entered a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The Court’s Holding
Affirmed.
Under Utah’s three-part plain view doctrine, a seizure is valid when (1) the officer is lawfully present, (2) the item is in plain view, and (3) the item is clearly incriminating—meaning the officer has probable cause to associate it with criminal activity. State v. Shepard, 955 P.2d 352, 357 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Saunders conceded the first two prongs and challenged only the third, but the court held that probable cause does not require certainty; it requires only a “reasonable belief that certain items may be contraband.” State v. Kelly, 718 P.2d 385, 390 (Utah 1986). Under the totality of the circumstances—erratic driving, the occupants’ nervousness, Saunders’s refusal to open the center console, his AP&P supervision status, and the crystalline residue visible in a rolled baggie tucked under a cigarette pack in the manner typical of drug concealment—the detective had ample probable cause.
On the body camera issue, the court held that a credibility finding by a district court that observed witnesses firsthand is entitled to substantial deference and is reversed only if clearly erroneous. Missing footage did not compel rejection of the detective’s testimony. The court further held that Utah’s body-camera statutes (Utah Code §§ 77-7a-104(2)(d) and 77-7a-104.1(2)(a)), which permit a court to give an adverse inference instruction when an officer fails to activate a body camera, do not apply to suppression hearings and are permissive even at trial.
On the field-test results, the court applied the settled rule that probable cause is assessed from the officer’s perspective at the moment of seizure, not in hindsight. State v. Lloyd, 2011 UT App 323, ¶ 11. Negative or inconclusive test results obtained after the seizure do not retroactively eliminate probable cause that existed when the officer acted.
Key Takeaways
- Plain view probable cause requires only a reasonable belief—not certainty—that an item may be contraband; the “immediately apparent” language means the officer has probable cause, not that the contraband is obvious beyond doubt.
- Missing body camera footage does not mandate suppression; district courts retain broad discretion to credit officer testimony even without video corroboration, and the Fourth Amendment imposes no body camera requirement as a predicate for probable cause.
- Utah’s adverse-inference body-camera statutes are (a) permissive rather than mandatory and (b) inapplicable at suppression hearings where no jury is present to receive an instruction.
- Post-seizure facts—such as negative field-test results—do not retroactively invalidate a probable cause determination that was reasonable on the facts known to the officer at the moment of seizure.
Why It Matters
State v. Saunders addresses a growing defense strategy in Utah drug cases: using the absence of body camera footage to attack officer credibility at suppression hearings. The decision confirms that trial courts retain broad discretion to credit officer testimony even when corroborating video is unavailable. Defense counsel should not expect a suppression court to draw adverse inferences from a body camera gap; that remedy is expressly tied to jury instructions at trial, and even there it is permissive.
The retroactivity point on probable cause is equally significant. Officers making split-second judgments in the field cannot know the results of lab tests that have not yet been run. When a determination of probable cause is objectively reasonable at the time of seizure, subsequent negative results do not undo the constitutional basis for the search. Practitioners representing defendants in drug cases should be aware that post-seizure test outcomes—while potentially useful to contest the substantive charge—do not provide a viable path to suppression under this framework.