Utah Supreme Court
Can police target out-of-state vehicles during traffic interdiction exercises? State v. Chettero Explained
Summary
Chettero was stopped during a Utah Highway Patrol drug interdiction exercise targeting vehicles transporting marijuana from California eastward through Utah. During the exercise, 95-99% of vehicles stopped bore out-of-state plates. Chettero filed motions to suppress evidence based on equal protection, right to travel, and Fourth Amendment grounds, all of which were denied.
Analysis
In State v. Chettero, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether law enforcement’s focus on out-of-state vehicles during drug interdiction exercises violates constitutional protections. The case provides important guidance on the limits of selective enforcement and preservation of evidentiary challenges.
Background and Facts
The Utah Highway Patrol conducted a drug interdiction exercise on I-80 in Summit County based on intelligence that marijuana harvested in California would be transported eastward through Utah in mid-November 2008. During the three-day operation, troopers stopped 144-147 vehicles, with 95-99% bearing out-of-state license plates. Trooper Jensen stopped Chettero’s California-plated vehicle for allegedly crossing the fog line, discovering 105 pounds of marijuana during the subsequent search.
Key Legal Issues
Chettero filed two suppression motions: first, claiming the selective enforcement violated his right to travel and equal protection rights; second, arguing under the Fourth Amendment that the officer fabricated the traffic violation. The district court denied both motions after finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory purpose and concluding the stop was justified based on officer testimony and video evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court applied rational basis review to the equal protection claim, finding that focusing on out-of-state vehicles had a conceivable relation to the legitimate goal of intercepting drug trafficking. The court rejected the right to travel claim, noting that temporary traffic stops do not implicate fundamental rights to traverse state boundaries or access essential services. Regarding the Fourth Amendment challenge, the court found any error in excluding statistical evidence was harmless because the trial court also relied on video evidence not included in the appellate record.
Practice Implications
The decision demonstrates that selective traffic enforcement survives constitutional challenge when supported by legitimate law enforcement objectives. However, the case also highlights the importance of properly preserving evidentiary challenges – counsel’s failure to submit supplemental briefing after being given the opportunity resulted in waiver of the statistical evidence argument.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Chettero
Citation
2013 UT 9
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20110667
Date Decided
February 15, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A traffic interdiction exercise that focused primarily on out-of-state licensed vehicles did not violate the constitutional right to travel or equal protection where there was a rational basis for the enforcement strategy based on drug trafficking intelligence.
Standard of Review
Rational basis review for equal protection claims; harmless error analysis for evidentiary rulings
Practice Tip
When challenging selective enforcement, ensure statistical evidence is properly preserved and tied to specific officer testimony through supplemental briefing to avoid waiver.
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.