Can police use force to prevent suspects from swallowing evidence? State v. Alverez Explained

In State v. Alverez, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when police officers may use physical force to prevent suspects from destroying evidence, specifically when a suspect attempts to swallow drugs during a detention.

Background and Facts

Officers conducted surveillance at a condominium complex after receiving tips about drug activity. Over two consecutive days, they observed Defendant make brief visits to the complex in an uninsured vehicle that had been reported in connection with drug sales. During questioning about the lack of insurance and suspected drug activity, officers noticed Defendant making swallowing motions with objects in his mouth. The officers grabbed his wrists and twisted his arms, forcing him to bend forward and preventing him from swallowing the evidence. Defendant then spat out 15 balloons containing heroin and cocaine.

Key Legal Issues

The case raised three critical Fourth Amendment questions: (1) whether officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant based on the totality of circumstances; (2) whether they had a clear indication that evidence would be found to justify the warrantless search; and (3) whether the level of force used was constitutionally reasonable under the exigent circumstances exception.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court first determined this was a level two seizure requiring reasonable suspicion because a reasonable person would not feel free to leave when confronted by uniformed officers making accusatory inquiries. Applying the totality of circumstances test, the court found reasonable suspicion based on: tips about drug activity, the vehicle’s connection to drug sales, Defendant’s pattern of brief visits on consecutive days, and suspicious items observed in his car.

For the search, the court applied the three-part Schmerber test, finding: (1) officers had a clear indication that drugs would be found based on Defendant’s nervous behavior and mouth manipulations; (2) exigent circumstances existed because evidence would be destroyed; and (3) the force used was reasonable. The court emphasized that the officers used minimal force—grabbing wrists and twisting arms—without applying pressure to Defendant’s throat or inserting fingers into his mouth.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that police may use reasonable force to prevent evidence destruction, but the level of force must be proportionate to the degree of exigency. The court noted this was a “close case” where the totality of circumstances “barely meets the threshold” of reasonable suspicion, emphasizing that removing any single factor might have changed the outcome. Defense attorneys should carefully analyze each component of the reasonable suspicion calculus, while prosecutors should ensure thorough investigation before detention to strengthen their position on appeal.