Can police arrest for trespass when the property owner doesn't want to press charges? State v. Hansen Explained

In State v. Hansen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether police officers have probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass when the property owner explicitly states they do not want to press charges. This case provides important guidance on the distinction between probable cause for arrest and a victim’s prosecution preferences.

Background and Facts

Officers responded to a burglary call at 2:00 a.m. and encountered Hansen on the property owner’s back patio. Hansen was exhibiting signs of methamphetamine use, including jerky movements and clutching a purse tightly. When questioned about drugs, Hansen ran into the house and upstairs to a bedroom, where she attempted to hide her purse under a bed. The grandmother who owned the house yelled “I don’t want her anywhere around my house” and demanded that Hansen leave. Despite these clear objections, Hansen remained in the house until officers escorted her out.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Officer Gorman had probable cause to arrest Hansen for criminal trespass under Utah Code section 76-6-206(2)(b)(i), which requires that a person knowingly enter or remain on property after notice against entering is given by personal communication from the owner. Hansen argued that the arrest lacked probable cause because the grandmother stated she did not want to press charges.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, applying the correctness standard of review for legal conclusions. The court held that Officer Gorman had probable cause to believe Hansen committed criminal trespass when she entered and remained on the property after the owner’s explicit objections. Critically, the court ruled that the victim’s desire not to press charges is “irrelevant to the analysis of whether the police officer had probable cause to believe a crime occurred.” The State, not the victim, prosecutes criminal acts.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that probable cause analysis focuses on the totality of circumstances known to the officer at the time of arrest. Defense counsel challenging arrests should concentrate on whether the elements of the alleged crime were satisfied based on the officer’s observations, rather than relying on subsequent victim statements about prosecution preferences. The case also confirms that lawful arrests based on probable cause support valid searches incident to arrest.