Can probable cause exist when evidence points more strongly toward a co-defendant? State v. Burzak Explained

In State v. Burzak, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether probable cause existed to bind a defendant over for trial on drug possession charges when evidence appeared to more strongly implicate his co-defendant.

Background and Facts

Thomas Burzak and Tyler Nihells were traveling together when a state trooper stopped their vehicle and discovered over eleven pounds of marijuana in the trunk. The trooper detected a strong marijuana odor from Nihells, who admitted to recent use and appeared nervous. Nihells was driving and had the keys, while Burzak owned the vehicle. At their joint preliminary hearing, the magistrate declined to bind either defendant over for trial, finding insufficient evidence of constructive possession.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two main arguments: (1) whether contraband must be within physical reach to establish accessibility under Maryland v. Pringle, and (2) whether evidence “singling out” a co-defendant defeats probable cause against the other defendant under United States v. Di Re.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding probable cause existed. First, Pringle does not require contraband to be within physical reach—general access to the vehicle area suffices. Burzak, as the vehicle owner, had access to the trunk. Second, unlike in Di Re, no “singling out” occurred because neither defendant provided information about exclusive ownership of the contraband. The court emphasized that the large quantity suggested drug dealing, making a common enterprise inference reasonable. Additional factors supported probable cause: the drug dog’s alert near Burzak’s seat, marijuana fragments throughout the vehicle, comingled belongings, and Burzak’s nervous behavior.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that probable cause determinations consider the totality of circumstances. Vehicle ownership and access remain significant factors in constructive possession cases, even when other evidence may more strongly implicate a co-defendant. Practitioners should focus on the complete factual picture rather than isolated factors when challenging probable cause at preliminary hearings.