Utah Court of Appeals
Can police search a suspect moments before making an arrest? State v. Chansamone Explained
Summary
Chansamone was arrested for drug possession after a nightclub security guard observed him with a baggie containing white powder and informed police. Officer Cortwright searched Chansamone’s pocket and found cocaine after observing suspicious behavior. The trial court denied Chansamone’s motion to suppress the evidence.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Chansamone, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a warrantless search conducted moments before a formal arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. The case provides important guidance on the search incident to arrest exception and the reliability of citizen informants.
Background and Facts: A nightclub security guard observed Chansamone with a baggie containing white powder and reported this to police. When Officer Cortwright arrived, he found Chansamone kneeling by a toilet, apparently vomiting, but determined he was faking. Chansamone repeatedly reached for his right pants pocket despite orders to keep his hands on the wall. The officer searched the pocket and found cocaine, then formally arrested Chansamone.
Key Legal Issues: The primary issue was whether the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. Chansamone argued the search did not fall within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The court had to determine whether the search qualified as a valid search incident to arrest.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court applied the totality of circumstances test to evaluate probable cause. The security guard qualified as a citizen informant, whose reliability and veracity are presumed because they volunteer information for community welfare rather than personal gain. The guard’s credibility was further enhanced by his identity being known to police and his history of providing reliable information. The court found the search and arrest were substantially contemporaneous, noting that searches may precede formal arrests by moments without invalidating the search incident to arrest exception.
Practice Implications: This decision reinforces that the timing of searches relative to arrests requires substantial contemporaneity rather than perfect chronological order. Defense attorneys should examine the reliability factors for citizen informants, including their relationship with police and motivation for reporting. Prosecutors can rely on citizen informant testimony when supported by corroborating officer observations of suspicious behavior consistent with the informant’s report.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Chansamone
Citation
2003 UT App 107
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20020235-CA
Date Decided
April 10, 2003
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A warrantless search of an arrestee’s person is valid as a search incident to arrest when probable cause exists and the search and arrest are substantially contemporaneous.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal conclusions on motion to suppress, with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge’s application of the legal standard to the facts
Practice Tip
When challenging warrantless searches, examine whether the timing between search and arrest was substantially contemporaneous, as searches may legally precede formal arrests by brief moments.
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.