Utah Court of Appeals
Does using take-down lights during a police encounter create an unlawful seizure? State v. Justesen Explained
Summary
A sheriff’s sergeant approached a parked minivan at night on a desolate road and activated take-down lights for safety while investigating whether the occupants needed assistance. During the encounter, the sergeant detected alcohol on the driver’s breath and arrested him for DUI. The trial court suppressed evidence, ruling the activation of take-down lights created a level two stop without reasonable suspicion.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Justesen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a police officer’s use of take-down lights during a late-night encounter with a parked vehicle automatically creates a level two stop requiring reasonable suspicion.
Background and Facts
Sergeant Stefanoff encountered a parked minivan on a desolate stretch of Airport Road at 12:45 a.m. The vehicle had no lights on, and Stefanoff was uncertain if it was occupied. He parked behind the minivan and activated his take-down lights to illuminate the area for safety purposes. Upon approaching, Stefanoff discovered Justesen in the driver’s seat with keys in the ignition. During their conversation, Stefanoff detected alcohol on Justesen’s breath, leading to field sobriety tests and an arrest for DUI.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Stefanoff’s activation of take-down lights escalated the encounter from a voluntary level one encounter to a level two stop requiring reasonable suspicion. The trial court granted Justesen’s motion to suppress, concluding that the bright take-down lights constituted a display of authority that would make a reasonable person believe they were not free to leave.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing the case from State v. Struhs, where similar lighting was deemed coercive. Unlike Struhs, which involved a confrontational “nose-to-nose” approach and stealthy observation, Stefanoff’s encounter was straightforward community caretaking. The court emphasized that Stefanoff used the take-down lights for illumination and safety, not as a show of authority. The totality of circumstances supported finding this was a voluntary encounter where Justesen remained free to leave.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that officers may use safety equipment during late-night encounters without automatically creating a seizure. The analysis requires examining the officer’s intent, manner of approach, and overall circumstances rather than focusing on specific equipment used. For practitioners, the case demonstrates the importance of developing a complete factual record regarding the officer’s purpose and conduct during police encounters.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Justesen
Citation
2002 UT App 165
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20010315-CA
Date Decided
May 16, 2002
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
An officer’s activation of take-down lights to illuminate an area for safety purposes during a late-night encounter with a parked vehicle does not automatically convert a voluntary level one encounter into a level two stop requiring reasonable suspicion.
Standard of Review
Correctness for conclusions of law, with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge’s application of the legal standard to the facts
Practice Tip
When challenging suppression orders involving police encounters, carefully analyze the totality of circumstances and distinguish cases based on the officer’s intent and manner of approach rather than focusing solely on specific equipment used.
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.