Utah Court of Appeals

Can police search a truck's sleeper area without a warrant? State v. Chevre Explained

2000 UT App 006
No. 981375-CA
January 21, 2000
Affirmed

Summary

A Utah Highway Patrol trooper stopped Chevre’s tractor-trailer for a defective brake light, then extended the stop based on reasonable suspicion that Chevre was driving under the influence of drugs. After arresting Chevre following failed field sobriety tests, the trooper searched the truck’s sleeper area and discovered 350 pounds of marijuana.

Analysis

In State v. Chevre, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether law enforcement can search the sleeper compartment of a commercial truck following an arrest. The case provides important guidance on the scope of searches incident to arrest in commercial vehicles.

Background and Facts

A Utah Highway Patrol trooper stopped Chevre’s tractor-trailer for a defective brake light. During the stop, the trooper observed that Chevre gave incoherent responses, appeared extremely nervous, and exhibited other signs suggesting impairment. Based on these observations, the trooper administered field sobriety tests, which Chevre failed. After arresting Chevre for driving under the influence, the trooper searched the truck’s sleeper area and discovered 350 pounds of marijuana wrapped in bundles.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined three issues: whether the initial traffic stop was justified, whether the trooper properly extended the stop’s scope based on reasonable suspicion, and whether the search of the sleeper area violated the Fourth Amendment. The most significant issue concerned the constitutionality of searching the sleeper compartment under the search incident to arrest doctrine.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the sleeper area constituted part of the truck’s passenger compartment under New York v. Belton. Because the sleeper area was accessible from the driver’s seat through a curtain without exiting the vehicle, it fell within the arrestee’s immediate control. The court emphasized that occupants could reach the sleeper area simply by extending through the curtain, making it analogous to cargo areas in sport utility vehicles that courts have deemed searchable.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly impacts criminal defense practitioners handling vehicle search cases. The ruling establishes that commercial truck sleeper compartments accessible from the cab without exiting are subject to warrantless searches following arrest. Defense attorneys should carefully examine the physical configuration of vehicles and argue that truly separate compartments requiring exit from the passenger area fall outside Belton‘s scope.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. Chevre

Citation

2000 UT App 006

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 981375-CA

Date Decided

January 21, 2000

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

The search of a tractor-trailer’s sleeper area was constitutional as a search incident to arrest because the sleeper area was accessible from the passenger compartment without exiting the vehicle and was therefore within the arrestee’s immediate control under New York v. Belton.

Standard of Review

Factual findings underlying a motion to suppress reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard; legal conclusions reviewed for correctness with a measure of discretion given to the trial judge’s application of the legal standard to the facts

Practice Tip

When challenging vehicle searches incident to arrest, focus on whether the searched area was actually accessible from the passenger compartment without exiting the vehicle, as courts apply a broad definition of ‘passenger compartment’ under Belton.

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

    • Utah Supreme Court

    Poteet v. White

    October 20, 2006

    A property owner cannot be held vicariously liable for fire damage caused by an independent contractor when undisputed evidence establishes the contractor did not set the fire that caused the damage.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
    • Utah Supreme Court

    Zonts v. Pleasant Grove City

    October 10, 2017

    Petitioners failed to satisfy their burden under Rule 19 of demonstrating they possessed no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy other than filing directly with the Supreme Court.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Mootness
    Read More
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.