Can police officers touch a vehicle to determine if it was recently driven? State v. Speights Explained

In State v. Speights, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether police officers’ brief touches of a vehicle’s exterior to assess engine temperature constitute Fourth Amendment searches.

Background and Facts
Officers responding to a 911 call about someone banging on doors and windows found a Ford Explorer parked suspiciously near the residence. To determine how long the vehicle had been there, Officer Nelson touched the hood while Sergeant Stowers reached into the wheel well on two occasions. Both officers testified the engine felt hot. The officers later found defendant Holly Speights intoxicated in a nearby garage, leading to DUI charges. Speights moved to suppress the temperature evidence, arguing the touches were unconstitutional searches under United States v. Jones.

Key Legal Issues
The case presented two critical questions: (1) whether brief touches to a vehicle’s exterior constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment based on Jones‘ trespass analysis, and (2) if so, whether the automobile exception justified the warrantless searches.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court declined to resolve whether the officers’ conduct constituted searches under Jones. Instead, the court assumed arguendo that the touches were searches but found them justified under the automobile exception. The court analyzed the totality of circumstances surrounding the final touch of the wheel well, noting the vehicle was recklessly parked near the disturbance location, contained an open liquor bottle, had a partially open door, and showed signs of recent occupation. These circumstances provided probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the disturbance crime. Because the final touch was an independent source of the temperature evidence, and defendant did not dispute this argument, the evidence was admissible.

Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the court’s reluctance to expand Jones to brief physical contact with vehicles. More importantly, it emphasizes that even if such contact constitutes a search, the automobile exception may still justify the intrusion when officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of any crime—not necessarily the crime ultimately charged. Practitioners challenging vehicle searches should focus on undermining the probable cause analysis rather than solely arguing constitutional violations under Jones.