Direct Appeal Fourth District, Provo The Honorable Claudia
Laycock No. 141401875
D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Karen A. Klucznik, Asst. Solic.
Gen., Julia Thomas, Salt Lake City, for appellee.
Douglas J. Thompson, Margaret P. Lindsay, Provo, for
Associate Chief Justice Lee authored the opinion of the
Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Himonas,
Justice Pearce, and Justice Petersen joined.
Associate Chief Justice.
Michael Binks was convicted of possession of drugs and drug
paraphernalia. In this appeal he challenges the denial of his
motion to suppress the evidence that formed the basis for his
conviction. We affirm.
When officers stopped Binks's vehicle, they had at least
reasonable suspicion to investigate two traffic violations
and possible drug possession. And when the officers
approached the vehicle they gained reasonable suspicion of
another offense-driving under the influence. The officers
were entitled under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
(1968), to detain Binks for a reasonable time while they
investigated these offenses. We affirm on that basis without
reaching the other two grounds asserted by the State for
defending the search-that police were justified in searching
Binks based on the warrant for the apartment Binks had just
visited and that Binks was within the vicinity of the
residence covered by the search warrant and thus a proper
subject of the warrant under Bailey v. United
States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013).
On June 26, 2014, the Utah County Major Crimes Task Force
executed a search warrant on an apartment in American Fork,
Utah. Officers with the task force had obtained a warrant to
search the listed apartment for "narcotics,
paraphernalia, " and "other items associated with
the use/distribution of controlled substances." The
warrant also authorized police to search (1) any "person
at the location or attempting to leave the location at the
time of warrant service" and (2) "[a]ny vehicle
parked at the location or attempting to leave the location
during the time of service."
Shortly before 8:00 a.m. on June 26, Detective Phillip
Crawford began surveilling the apartment from a position in
the parking lot behind the apartment. Two other officers,
Sergeant Jones and Deputy Robinson, had set up surveillance a
few blocks away. Just before Detective Crawford could leave
his vehicle and serve the warrant, he saw two men arrive in a
silver SUV. One or both men then entered the apartment,
stayed for two or three minutes, and left in the SUV.
As the SUV left the premises, Detective Crawford radioed
orders to Sergeant Jones and Deputy Robinson to stop the car.
Detective Crawford also reported that the SUV had failed to
signal when exiting the parking lot. Crawford believed that
the vehicle was covered within the terms of the warrant, but
noted the traffic violation as "kind of a double
Immediately after radioing to Sergeant Jones and Deputy
Robinson, Detective Crawford and other officers served the
warrant on the apartment identified in the warrant. Detective
Crawford testified that the elapsed time between radioing a
description of the car and serving the warrant on the
apartment was just "long enough to walk . . . the
distance from our vehicle to where the residence is."
Sergeant Jones received the order from Detective Crawford and
almost immediately spotted the silver SUV. While tailing the
car, Jones saw the driver commit yet another traffic
violation- stopping beyond the painted line at a stop sign.
The officers activated their lights and stopped the car at
When Deputy Robinson approached the vehicle, he noticed that
Michael Binks, the driver, had glossy and bloodshot eyes and
that the vehicle smelled of alcohol. The officer also noted
that Binks seemed "very nervous"-"actually
shaking, he was that nervous." Deputy Robinson suspected
that Binks was under the influence of drugs or alcohol ...