Utah Court of Appeals
Can police rely on tongue color to justify a drug arrest? State v. Hechtle Explained
Summary
Following a speeding stop, a trooper arrested Hechtle for driving with measurable controlled substances based on air fresheners in the car, red droopy eyes, and a green tongue. The trial court denied Hechtle’s motion to suppress evidence found during a search incident to arrest.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Troy Hechtle was stopped for speeding on Interstate 15. During the traffic stop, Trooper Bairett observed Hechtle and his passenger light cigarettes as he approached, noticed multiple air fresheners in the car, and found Hechtle to be “overly helpful.” When checking Hechtle’s corrective lens restriction, the trooper observed that Hechtle’s eyes were red, droopy, and had dilated pupils. The trooper then asked Hechtle to stick out his tongue and observed it was “very green” with “blisters all over the back.” Based on these observations, the trooper arrested Hechtle for driving with any measurable controlled substance in the body under Utah Code § 41-6-44.6.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trooper had probable cause to arrest Hechtle for driving with measurable controlled substances. Hechtle moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the search incident to arrest, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause and the frisk was therefore unlawful.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient probable cause for the arrest. While acknowledging that multiple air fresheners and red eyes could support reasonable suspicion, the court was troubled by the trooper’s reliance on tongue color as “dispositive proof of marijuana use.” The State presented no scientific studies or authority supporting the reliability of green tongue as evidence of drug use. Critically, the trooper performed no field sobriety tests and did not involve a certified drug recognition examiner to validate his suspicions. The court emphasized that the trooper’s “mere suspicion” was insufficient to establish probable cause.
Practice Implications
This decision highlights the importance of proper validation procedures in drug-related arrests. Officers cannot rely solely on unscientific observations like tongue color without corroborating evidence through established testing methods. Defense counsel should challenge arrests based on novel or unvalidated indicators of drug use, particularly where officers fail to employ standard detection procedures. The ruling reinforces that probable cause requires more than educated guesses and must be supported by reliable, objective evidence.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Hechtle
Citation
2004 UT App 96
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20020543-CA
Date Decided
April 1, 2004
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Probable cause did not exist for arrest based on officer’s observation of air fresheners, red eyes, and green tongue where officer failed to confirm suspicions through field sobriety tests or drug recognition examiner evaluation.
Standard of Review
Little discretion to the district court on reasonableness of search and seizure to ensure state-wide standards for law enforcement
Practice Tip
When challenging drug-related arrests, focus on the reliability of officer observations and whether proper validation procedures like field sobriety tests or drug recognition examiner evaluations were conducted to confirm suspicions.
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.