When does the good faith exception apply to traffic checkpoint stops? State v. Deherrera Explained

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides limited protection for evidence obtained through constitutional violations, but the Utah Court of Appeals clarified its boundaries in State v. Deherrera. The court addressed whether officers could rely on this exception when conducting stops pursuant to a judicially approved administrative traffic checkpoint plan that ultimately violated both state law and federal constitutional requirements.

Background and Facts

Utah County authorities operated an administrative traffic checkpoint in Tibble Fork Canyon under a plan initially approved in 1992 but repeatedly amended over nearly four years. The final amendments significantly expanded the scope, allowing “all sworn and/or certified law enforcement officers” from multiple agencies to participate rather than listing specific officers by name as required by Utah Code Ann. 77-23-104(2)(a)(v). When officers stopped Deherrera in September 1995, they discovered she lacked a valid license and was driving an unregistered vehicle. During the subsequent investigation, officers found methamphetamine on her person.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the good faith exception applied when officers conducted a warrantless stop pursuant to a judicially approved plan that violated statutory requirements. The trial court found the checkpoint plan violated Utah law and the Constitution due to its excessive duration, failure to list officers by name, and overly broad scope that exceeded Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz requirements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished this case from United States v. Leon and Illinois v. Krull, finding neither good faith exception applied. Unlike Leon, which involved a warrant later found unsupported by probable cause, this case involved no warrant and no probable cause requirement. Unlike Krull, which addressed reliance on an unconstitutional statute, here officers acted pursuant to a judicially approved plan, and the plan—not the authorizing statute—was found deficient. Critically, the court emphasized that officers were acting outside the statute’s scope, which Krull specifically excluded from good faith protection.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that strict statutory compliance is essential for administrative checkpoint validity. The court criticized the practice of presenting piecemeal amendments rather than complete, coherent plans for judicial review. Practitioners should examine whether checkpoint plans comply with all specific statutory requirements, particularly the mandate to list authorized officers by name. The decision also reinforces that judicial approval alone does not create good faith protection if the underlying plan violates statutory requirements.