Utah Court of Appeals
Can police stop a vehicle based on wearing sunglasses and using the bathroom? State v. Tetmyer Explained
Summary
A Utah Highway Patrol trooper observed defendant and his passenger at a convenience store, where the passenger appeared intoxicated and both went directly to the bathroom. The trooper stopped defendant’s vehicle based on these observations plus defendant wearing sunglasses inside and walking slightly off line. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the stop, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
Analysis
In State v. Tetmyer, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether specific behaviors observed at a convenience store provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop under Terry v. Ohio.
Background and Facts
A Utah Highway Patrol trooper observed defendant and his passenger at a Monticello convenience store. The passenger appeared obviously intoxicated, staggering and nearly falling. Defendant wore dark sunglasses inside the store and walked directly to the bathroom, appearing to walk “off line.” The trooper pursued and stopped defendant’s vehicle despite observing no traffic violations. During the stop, officers found controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and open alcohol containers.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trooper possessed reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the initial vehicle stop. The trial court identified four factors supporting the stop: defendant’s continued wearing of sunglasses indoors, both occupants heading directly to the bathroom, the passenger’s obvious intoxication, and defendant’s slightly off-line walking.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that these four circumstances, even taken together, failed to establish reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence or open container violations. The court emphasized that each behavior had innocent explanations and that the combination described “a very large category of presumably innocent travelers.” The court noted that allowing such stops would create virtually random seizures and could discourage designated drivers contrary to public policy.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that reasonable suspicion requires more than merely suspicious but innocent behaviors. Criminal defense attorneys should emphasize how challenged stops are based on conduct with innocent explanations that could apply to many law-abiding citizens. The decision also demonstrates the importance of examining the totality of circumstances, including the absence of observed traffic violations that might have supported the officer’s suspicions.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Tetmyer
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 960702-CA
Date Decided
October 17, 1997
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Four articulated facts—wearing sunglasses inside a store, walking directly to the bathroom, having an obviously intoxicated passenger, and walking slightly off line—do not provide reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a vehicle stop.
Standard of Review
Correctness with a measure of discretion afforded to the trial judge when applying the reasonable suspicion standard to a given set of facts
Practice Tip
When challenging vehicle stops, emphasize how the observed behaviors have innocent explanations and could describe many law-abiding citizens to avoid creating virtually random seizures.
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.