Utah Court of Appeals
Can police lift clothing during a Terry frisk without specific weapon concerns? State v. Naranjo Explained
Summary
Officer Valentine frisked James Naranjo after a Terry stop based on a report of car prowling. During the frisk, Valentine lifted Naranjo’s pant leg, causing a bindle of heroin to fall out. The trial court denied Naranjo’s motion to suppress, and he was convicted of drug possession with intent to distribute.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the boundaries of permissible Terry frisks in State v. Naranjo, holding that an officer’s decision to lift a suspect’s pant leg exceeded the constitutional scope of a weapons search.
Background and Facts
Officer Valentine responded to a 911 call reporting someone looking into vehicles on a college campus. After pursuing cyclist James Naranjo, Valentine activated his emergency lights and drew his weapon when Naranjo approached aggressively while talking on his phone. Naranjo threw several items from his pockets, including a pry bar, before Valentine handcuffed him and began a protective frisk. During the search, Valentine lifted Naranjo’s right pant leg, causing a bindle of heroin to drop out.
Key Legal Issues
The case centered on whether Valentine’s visual search beneath Naranjo’s clothing violated the Fourth Amendment by exceeding the permissible scope of a Terry v. Ohio weapons search. The court examined whether the officer had sufficient justification to lift the suspect’s pant leg rather than conducting a traditional pat-down.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court emphasized that Terry searches must be “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify their initiation” and limited to discovering weapons. The court found Valentine’s actions unreasonable because: (1) Naranjo had already discarded the metallic object that caused concern; (2) he was handcuffed and subdued; (3) Valentine had no specific reason to believe weapons were concealed in Naranjo’s ankle area; and (4) Valentine’s explanation for lifting the pant leg was contradicted by his subsequent ability to pat down the other leg. The search impermissibly transformed from a weapons frisk into a general search for evidence.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Terry frisks must remain limited to pat-downs of outer clothing unless officers can articulate specific safety concerns justifying more intrusive measures. The ruling protects against pretextual searches disguised as weapons searches and emphasizes that officer convenience cannot justify exceeding constitutional boundaries during investigative stops.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Naranjo
Citation
2005 UT App 311
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
Case No. 20030677-CA
Date Decided
June 30, 2005
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A police officer’s visual search beneath a suspect’s clothing by lifting their pant leg exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry frisk when the officer lacked articulable facts suggesting the suspect concealed a weapon in that location.
Standard of Review
Correctness for search and seizure issues based on examination of the totality of the circumstances; clearly erroneous standard for factual findings
Practice Tip
During Terry frisks, ensure searches remain limited to pat-downs of outer clothing and clearly articulate specific safety concerns before conducting any visual inspection beneath clothing.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.