Utah Court of Appeals
Can jaywalking justify a police stop even if no jaywalking charges are filed? Salt Lake City v. Hughes Explained
Summary
Hughes appealed from a Sery plea to several class B misdemeanors, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after he was stopped by police. A Salt Lake City police officer observed Hughes running at a full sprint eastbound down the middle of a city street in jeans and a T-shirt in cold temperatures, then running diagonally across State Street outside of the crosswalk into a bank parking lot.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Salt Lake City v. Hughes, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a police officer’s observation of jaywalking provides sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, even when no jaywalking charges are ultimately filed.
Hughes was observed by a Salt Lake City police officer running at a “full sprint” down the middle of a city street in cold weather, then running diagonally across State Street outside of the crosswalk into a bank parking lot. The officer followed and stopped Hughes. Hughes later entered a Sery plea to several class B misdemeanors but challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop.
Hughes argued that the stop was not justified at its inception, though he did not challenge the scope of the detention. The trial court ruled that the detention was justified because Hughes committed jaywalking in the officer’s presence. Hughes pointed to the officer’s written report, which made no mention of his failure to use the crosswalk, and noted that Salt Lake City never charged him with jaywalking.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying established Fourth Amendment precedent that “a police officer may detain and question an individual when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.” The court emphasized that a stop is justified if it is “incident to a traffic violation committed in the officer[‘s] presence,” and the relevant question is “whether the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify [the] action, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind.”
Significantly, the court noted that while the trial court is “in a unique position to assess the credibility of witnesses,” here the officer was the only witness and testified that he saw Hughes jaywalking. The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determination, emphasizing that appellate courts “will not second-guess the trial court where there is a reasonable basis to support its findings.”
Case Details
Case Name
Salt Lake City v. Hughes
Citation
2011 UT App 128
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100355-CA
Date Decided
April 21, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A police officer’s observation of a defendant jaywalking in the officer’s presence provides reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, regardless of whether charges are ultimately filed for jaywalking.
Standard of Review
Legal conclusions reviewed for correctness; factual findings underlying a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress reviewed for clear error
Practice Tip
When challenging the basis for a traffic stop, focus on whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion at the time of the stop, not on whether charges were ultimately filed for the observed violation.
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.