Utah Court of Appeals

Can police transport DUI suspects to the station for field sobriety testing? State v. Beckstrom Explained

2013 UT App 104
No. 20110227-CA
April 25, 2013
Affirmed

Summary

Defendant pleaded guilty to DUI causing serious bodily injury after her motion to suppress was denied. She argued that transporting her to a police station for field sobriety testing constituted an unlawful detention or de facto arrest without probable cause.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In State v. Beckstrom, defendant caused a head-on collision during a snowstorm, seriously injuring another couple. The responding officer observed signs of impairment including slurred speech, glossy eyes, and the odor of alcohol. Due to severe weather conditions and defendant’s inadequate clothing, the officer transported her to a nearby police station for field sobriety testing rather than conducting tests at the roadside. The officer specifically informed defendant she was not under arrest and obtained her consent for the relocation.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether transporting defendant to the police station exceeded the permissible scope of an investigative detention under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant argued this constituted either a de facto arrest without probable cause or an impermissible extension of her detention beyond what Terry v. Ohio allows.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals applied the totality of circumstances test from State v. Worwood. The court emphasized that officers must “diligently pursue a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly” but need not employ the least intrusive means available. Key factors supporting the detention’s reasonableness included: (1) severe weather conditions that cancelled LifeFlight, (2) defendant’s inadequate clothing, (3) concerns about testing validity in harsh conditions, (4) the brief 90-second transport, (5) defendant’s express consent, and (6) the officer’s assurance she was not under arrest.

Practice Implications

This decision provides guidance for law enforcement conducting DUI investigations in challenging conditions. The court’s analysis demonstrates that weather conditions, safety concerns, and testing validity can justify relocating field sobriety testing. However, officers should document these circumstances and obtain express consent when possible. The decision reinforces that reasonable suspicion can support brief additional detention for proper investigation, even when relocation to police facilities is involved.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Beckstrom

Citation

2013 UT App 104

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20110227-CA

Date Decided

April 25, 2013

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Transportation of a DUI suspect to a nearby police station for field sobriety testing under severe weather conditions with the suspect’s consent does not exceed the permissible scope of an investigative detention.

Standard of Review

Correctness standard for mixed questions of law and fact involving Fourth Amendment issues; clear error for factual findings underlying motion to suppress

Practice Tip

When moving DUI suspects for field sobriety testing, document weather conditions, safety concerns, and obtain express consent to support the reasonableness of the relocation decision.

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

    • Utah Supreme Court

    Brown v. Cox

    January 11, 2017

    Utah Code section 20A-4-403(2)(a)(ii), which purports to grant the Utah Supreme Court original jurisdiction over multi-county election contests, unconstitutionally expands the court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Utah Constitution permits.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Basic Research v. Admiral Insurance Company

    February 8, 2013

    An insurer has no duty to defend when underlying claims do not arise out of the specific offense covered by the policy but instead are excluded by explicit policy terms.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    Read More
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.