Facts of the Case
In July 2020, a bank employee in Kanab, Utah, called 911 to report a customer exhibiting concerning behavior. The caller stated that the customer, later identified as Dutton, appeared disoriented, spoke slowly, and seemed “pretty out of it.” The employee also reported that Dutton drove away from the bank in an erratic manner.
The Kanab City Police Department dispatched a sergeant to investigate. Kanab is a small town, and the sergeant had known Dutton since she was sixteen. Based on that familiarity, he believed he could recognize whether she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
When the sergeant arrived at the bank, Dutton had already left. As he drove through the area, he spotted Dutton’s vehicle ahead of him and noticed what appeared to be a broken taillight or brake light; he initiated a traffic stop.
During the stop, the sergeant observed multiple signs of possible impairment. He administered a field sobriety test, during which Dutton displayed multiple indicators of impairment. Based on these observations, the sergeant arrested Dutton. A subsequent blood test revealed methamphetamine and other substances in her system.
Dutton’s attorney later filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the arrest, arguing that the sergeant lacked probable cause to arrest her. The defense asserted that probable cause must rest on objective facts and that the sergeant should not have relied on his prior familiarity with Dutton.
At trial, testimony reveled that during the traffic stop, the sergeant briefly stepped away from Dutton’s vehicle to speak with two other officers. While he was gone, Dutton later admitted, she panicked. Realizing the stop involved more than a minor equipment violation, she retrieved methamphetamine and Valium from her purse and ingested both drugs while seated in her vehicle. She claimed she had purchased the drugs weeks earlier and had not used them that day prior to the stop, asserting that she had been sober for several weeks. Although she acknowledged that she remained in control of the vehicle at the time, she maintained that she could not have been impaired when the sergeant initially stopped her.
The sergeant testified that he was away from Dutton’s vehicle for less than five minutes and maintained visual contact for most of that time. Although he could not see her hands at all times, he stated that when he returned, he observed no signs that she had recently used drugs.
Issue
Were Dutton’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when she was arrested without a warrant? Specifically, Dutton argues that the objective facts—excluding the sergeant’s prior familiarity with her—were insufficient to establish probable cause.
Analysis
A police officer may arrest an individual without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is committing a crime. Probable cause does not require certainty; rather, it exists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has occurred.
In this case, the sergeant had probable cause to arrest Dutton based on objective evidence, independent of any prior interactions with her. His decision was supported by both his own observations and information provided by a third party.
First, a bank employee reported Dutton’s erratic behavior, slow speech, and apparent impairment. After locating Dutton and conducting a traffic stop, the sergeant personally observed behavior consistent with drug or alcohol use. During the field sobriety test, Dutton exhibited four indicators of impairment.
Taken together, these facts would lead a reasonable person to believe that Dutton was driving under the influence. Accordingly, the sergeant had probable cause to arrest her based on the information available at the time.
Conclusion
The district court concluded that probable cause existed to support Dutton’s arrest.