State v. Wells
Court of Appeals of Utah
1DissentBench, Judge
I respectfully dissent. Regardless of whether exigent circumstances justified the search, I believe the search was proper as incident to appellant’s lawful arrest. The jacket was within appellant’s “immediate control,” as that term has been defined by the courts.
The main opinion recognizes that police restraint is not dispositive of the immediate control issue. Therefore, even though appellant was handcuffed during the seizure, the jacket could still have been within his immediate control. See State v. Kent, 665 P.2d 1317, 1317-18 (Utah 1983) (upholding search where defendant was “handcuffed…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- A.J. MacKay Co. v. Okland Construction Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. RobalewskiSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1980
- Ricks v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
- State v. MorenoCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.