State v. Sanchez

477 P.3d 501

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.Luis Fernando SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 20190250-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed November 19, 2020

Emily Adams, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and John J. Nielsen, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster authored this Opinion, in which Judges David N. Mortensen and Diana Hagen concurred.

Opinion

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 Luis Fernando Sanchez appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and his motion for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 A police officer (Officer) investigated a loud house party after several neighbors called to complain about the noise. As Officer drove to the location, neighbors further reported that the party had spilled onto the street and a fight had ensued.

¶3 Still in his patrol car, Officer approached the house and saw fifteen to twenty people in the street and on the nearby sidewalk. Several partygoers were getting in their cars to leave, and others were fleeing on foot. A few of the cars headed toward Officer, and he activated his red and blue overhead lights and stopped his marked patrol car. He got out of his car and raised his hands in the air to signal the drivers to stop. Officer positioned his vehicle at an angle in the middle of the road to convey the message that "the road was blocked and [the drivers] were not to proceed past the patrol car."

¶4 Sanchez, who was driving one of the approaching vehicles, ignored Officer's hand signals and shouts to stop, the angled patrol car, and the flashing lights and drove around the patrol car. Officer reported that he made eye contact with Sanchez and that Sanchez was aware of his presence. Officer even slapped the hood of Sanchez's car—"making a fairly loud audible noise"—in an effort to persuade Sanchez to stop and to send the message that Sanchez was "not free to go."

¶5 Sanchez continued his drive about a block to a nearby intersection, where other officers had blocked the road. Officer approached Sanchez's vehicle after hearing the other officers yelling at Sanchez to stop his vehicle, turn off the engine, and put his hands on the steering wheel. Three women were in the vehicle with Sanchez. Sanchez did not cooperate with police commands and refused to exit the vehicle because he "didn't feel that [the police] had legal grounds to be contacting him." Officer observed that Sanchez seemed "upset" and "agitated." Sanchez shouted profanities at the officers and suggested that they should pepper spray him.

¶6 As Officer stood near Sanchez's lowered driver-side window, he detected the odor of alcohol. Officer opened the driver-side door and ordered Sanchez out, and Sanchez finally complied. As Officer stood near Sanchez, he could smell the "very strong odor of alcohol from [Sanchez's] breath" and deduced that Sanchez had been drinking. Officer also observed that Sanchez's "eyes appeared to be kind of glossed or glazed over," which Officer's experience suggested was a common sign of intoxication.

¶7 Officer handcuffed Sanchez and walked him toward the patrol car. Sanchez refused to proceed, insisting that Officer had "no reason to arrest him" and that he would not get in the patrol car. Officer then asked Sanchez to complete some field sobriety tests. Sanchez failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN test) that Officer performed on Sanchez's eyes, showing six out of six possible clues indicating that Sanchez might be impaired. At this point, Sanchez informed Officer that "he wouldn't have the ability to complete the other [field sobriety] tests."

¶8 Officer told Sanchez that he was under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and transported him to the local police station. At the station, Officer attempted to administer other field sobriety tests but was unable because Sanchez was, in Officer's words, "passively" uncooperative.

¶9 Officer then requested a search warrant to obtain a blood sample from Sanchez. Officer listed the following facts in his affidavit in support of the search warrant request: (1) He was dispatched on a report of fighting in the street. (2) A neighbor had reported that those involved in the fight were leaving. (3) Officer arrived on the scene, activated the emergency lights of his patrol car, and pulled in front of Sanchez's vehicle. (4) As Officer approached Sanchez's vehicle, Sanchez drove forward and around Officer's patrol car. (5) Officer made eye contact with Sanchez, raised both hands motioning him to stop, and yelled, "Stop, Police!" (6) Sanchez continued to drive forward and forced Officer to step to the side. (7) Officer placed his hands on the hood of Sanchez's moving vehicle. (8) Sanchez continued to ignore Officer's verbal commands to stop and accelerated rapidly away from the scene. (9) Officer radioed to other patrol units, who were able to block Sanchez at a nearby intersection. (10) Sanchez disobeyed commands to place his hands in the air and resisted attempts to place him in custody after he exited the vehicle. (11) Officer smelled the "strong odor of alcohol coming from the breath" of Sanchez. (12) Sanchez's speech was slurred and his eyes were red and bloodshot. (13) Sanchez admitted to consuming alcohol. (14) Open containers of beer were located under the driver seat. (15) Sanchez failed field sobriety tests. (16) Sanchez refused to submit to a breath test.

¶10 The warrant was approved, and the blood test revealed Sanchez's blood alcohol content to be .13%. The State charged Sanchez with failure to stop at the command of a police officer, interference with an arresting officer, DUI, and having an open container in his vehicle.

¶11 Sanchez filed two motions to suppress the results of the HGN test and the blood test. First, Sanchez moved to suppress all the evidence on the ground that Officer did not have probable cause to arrest him for DUI. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Sanchez's failure of the HGN test, when combined with the odor of alcohol on Sanchez and his "belligerence and fleeing," gave Officer probable cause to arrest Sanchez for DUI. The court also determined that Officer had "probable cause to arrest for failing to stop at the command of a police officer" and "that [arrest] would have allowed the impound of the vehicle and the resulting seizure." See Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-305.5 (LexisNexis Supp. 2020). The court concluded, "The vehicle was searched incident to arrest and empty alcohol containers were found in the driver's area. That search was permissible under these facts." Thus, the district court denied the motion on two grounds when it concluded that Officer had (1) probable cause to arrest Sanchez for DUI and (2) probable cause to arrest him for failing to stop.

¶12 Second, Sanchez requested an evidentiary hearing to suppress the results of the blood draw, arguing that Officer had misrepresented and omitted certain facts in the affidavit supporting the warrant request. Among the more significant discrepancies Sanchez identified were (1) that Officer said Sanchez had slurred speech in the affidavit, but he made no mention of slurred speech in his police report or court testimony; (2) that Officer indicated open containers were found under Sanchez's driver seat, but police found only two empty glass beer bottles under the seat; and (3) that Officer represented that Sanchez had failed multiple field sobriety tests, when he had failed only one. Sanchez argued that under Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the search warrant was invalid because the affidavit supporting it "included materially false and misleading information." See id. at 165, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ("[A] warrant affidavit must set forth particular facts and circumstances underlying the existence of probable cause, so as to allow the magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the matter."); see also State v. Garcia , 2007 UT App 228, ¶ 8, 164 P.3d 1264 ("In Franks, the Supreme Court held that a search warrant based on deliberate falsehoods or a reckless disregard for the truth must be evaluated to determine whether the affidavit supporting the warrant would still support probable cause once the false information is removed." (quotation simplified)). The district court denied the motion, concluding that the "discrepancies between the affidavit and the other ‘facts’ [were] not substantial enough to justify a finding" that Officer's "statements were intentionally false or misleading" such that the search warrant was unlawfully issued.

¶13 Sanchez pleaded guilty to failure to stop at the command of a police officer and DUI, while preserving his right to challenge the denial of his suppression motions on appeal. See State v. Tirado , 2018 UT App 132, ¶ 11 n.2, 428 P.3d 70 ("With the consent of the prosecution and the approval of the judge, a defendant may enter a conditional guilty plea, while preserving a suppression issue for appeal." (quotation simplified)); Utah R. Crim. P. 11 ("A defendant who prevails on appeal [after entering a conditional plea of guilty] shall be allowed to withdraw the plea."). Sanchez appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶14 Sanchez first alleges that the district court erred in denying his first motion to suppress, arguing that Officer lacked the probable cause necessary to arrest him. Sanchez next asserts that the district court erred in denying his request for a Franks evidentiary hearing, see supra ¶ 12, to explore the alleged false and misleading statements in the search warrant affidavit, which supported the issuance of the warrant.¹ "We review a denial of a motion to suppress as a mixed question of law and fact and will disturb the district court's factual findings only when they are clearly erroneous, but we afford no deference to the district court's application of law to the underlying factual findings." State v. Paredez , 2017 UT App 220, ¶ 11, 409 P.3d 125 (quotation simplified).

ANALYSIS

I. ...