Does a nighttime warrant execution in violation of a procedural rule require suppression in Utah? State v. Jaramillo Explained

Background and facts

Late one evening, officers stopped Anthony Ernesto Jaramillo for a traffic violation, detected a marijuana odor, and searched his vehicle, finding a handgun and controlled substances. Based on information from Jaramillo’s brother, an officer sought two search warrants: one to search Jaramillo’s residence and one to collect a blood sample and DNA swab. When submitting both warrant applications through the Utah Criminal Justice Information System (UCJIS), the officer inadvertently failed to check the box requesting nighttime execution authorization under rule 40(e)(1) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. Both magistrate-issued warrants accordingly authorized only daytime execution—between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.—yet officers executed both warrants at night.

Key legal issues

The central question was whether the violation of rule 40(e)(1)—executing daytime-only warrants during nighttime hours—required suppression of all evidence obtained. The district court suppressed the evidence despite finding no bad faith and acknowledging that nighttime authorization likely would have been granted had it been requested. The court rested its ruling solely on the rule violation, reasoning that the drafters of rule 40(e)(1) intended to impose an additional layer of magistrate scrutiny beyond common-law reasonableness standards.

Court’s analysis and holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, reaffirming the framework established in State v. Fixel, 744 P.2d 1366 (Utah 1987), and State v. Rowe, 850 P.2d 427 (Utah 1992). Under that framework, suppression for a procedural rule violation is warranted only when: (1) the violation is fundamental—meaning it infringed upon the defendant’s constitutional rights; (2) law enforcement acted in bad faith by intentionally and deliberately disregarding the rule; or (3) the defendant was substantially prejudiced in that the search would not have occurred or would have been less abrasive had the rule been followed. The district court expressly found no bad faith and acknowledged the magistrate would likely have granted nighttime authorization. It never ruled on the constitutional question. Having failed to find any of the three Rowe factors, the district court erred in suppressing the evidence based on the rule violation alone. The Supreme Court declined, on interlocutory review, to reach whether the nighttime searches independently violated the Fourth Amendment or article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution, leaving those questions open for the district court on remand.

Practice implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts apply a demanding, three-part threshold before suppression becomes an appropriate remedy for a procedural rule violation. Defense practitioners seeking suppression must affirmatively establish at least one Fixel/Rowe factor—and should independently develop the constitutional argument under both the Fourth Amendment and the Utah Constitution to preserve alternative grounds for affirmance. Prosecutors and officers should be aware that even an inadvertent, non-prejudicial rule violation will not automatically trigger suppression, but that leaving the constitutional question unaddressed at the district court level risks remand and renewed litigation. Practitioners on both sides should ensure the record fully addresses all three suppression factors and any independent constitutional grounds before an interlocutory ruling is sought.