Important Utah Cases

Published during the Vernal Equinox by Rich King.

Controlled Substances

In State v. Duran, 2007 UT 23 (March 9, 2007), police officers approached a trailer home and smelled the odor of marijuana. The officers decided that “exigent circumstances” existed that would allow them to enter the trailer without first obtaining a search warrant. Inside, they found controlled substances and firearms, and the defendant was convicted. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the odor of marijuana alone did not satisfy the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement. The Court held that by smoking marijuana, the defendant was not destroying the evidence in order to prevent its discovery by law enforcement. Until the warrant less entry, the defendant was unaware of police involvement and had no reason to destroy the marijuana. In addition, there was nothing in the record to suggest that police had reason to believe the evidence of drug use would be destroyed if they delayed their intrusion. Even if some of the marijuana was destroyed through the process of smoking, evidence of drug use would linger in the form of residue, paraphernalia, and unsmoked marijuana.

In State v. Miller, 2008 UT 61 (August 29, 2008), the defendant had a party in his home. While he was cleaning up after the party, he found a bottle containing a prescription medication with a label indicating that the prescription belonged to one of the people at the party. As he was cleaning, the defendant put the bottle in his pants pocket, intending to later return it to the owner. The defendant was later arrested and the bottle was found in a search incident to arrest. At his trial for possession of a controlled substance, the defendant raised a defense known as “innocent possession.” The defendant was convicted, and appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction, holding that “the possession statute implicitly includes the defense of innocent possession” and that the defendant “was entitled to an instruction based upon it.” The Supreme Court held that the “innocent possession” defense “applies if (1) the controlled substance was attained innocently and held with no illicit or illegal purpose, and (2) the possession of the controlled substance was transitory (in other words, the defendant took adequate measures to rid himself of possession of the controlled substances as promptly as reasonably possible. Although the Court did not impose an arbitrary time limit on the defendant for returning a prescription controlled substance to its owner, it leaves open the question of whether a defendant has taken reasonable measures to rid himself of the prescription.