Drug Trafficker Makes Constitutional Claim After Traffic Stop

An alleged drug trafficker recently made an interesting constitutional argument while appealing his drug trafficking charges.

Utah Highway Patrol officers allegedly found 105 pounds of marijuana in the man’s car after it was stopped on a rural stretch of Interstate 80 in Summit County in November of 2008. The UHP was conducting a high volume of traffic stops in that area because California authorities had informed them that California’s marijuana crop would be harvested around that time.

UHP officers suspected that drug traffickers would be moving marijuana through Utah around that period and hoped to catch some of the traffickers through increased patrols.

The UHP did saturation patrols in Summit County over a three day period that November. Although traffic stop logs had varying numbers, approximately 95 percent of the stops involved non-Utah license plates. This was despite the fact that the officers were allegedly not instructed to specifically target out-of-state vehicles.

The officer who stopped the California drug trafficker said that the man crossed the fog line three times during a half-mile stretch. While conducting the stop the UHP officer allegedly noticed the strong smell of raw marijuana and something in the back of the vehicle covered with a blanket.

A search of the vehicle allegedly revealed 105 pounds of marijuana. The man entered a provisional guilty plea to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute pending his appeal.

We will discuss the man’s legal arguments on appeal in our next post.

Source: State v. Chettero, 297 P.3d 582728, Utah Adv. Rep. 6, Feb. 15, 2013

Call Now

Disclaimer

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

The user and reader of this information should beware because although we strive to keep the information timely and accurate, there will often be a delay between official publication of the materials and their appearance in or modification of this system, and every case must be looked at individually. Thus, we make no express or implied guarantees that the information on this site is correct, and it should not be relied upon. The Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations remain the official sources for regulatory information published by the Department of Labor, and before you do anything, you should consult an attorney, who can review the specifics of your matter. We will make every effort to correct errors brought to our attention, but laws and regulations are constantly changing, and we may at times even misinterpret them.