State v. Saunders

2026 UT App 103
THE UTAH C OURT OF APPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH ,
Appellee,
v.
C HRISTOPHER DEAN S AUNDERS ,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20230492-CA
Filed July 9, 2026
Fifth District Court, Cedar City Department
The Honorable Ann Marie McIff Allen
No. 221500713
Wendy M. Brown, Debra M. Nelson, and
Benjamin Miller, Attorneys for Appellant,
assisted by law student Lucius T.G. Anderson1
Derek E. Brown and Alexandra Herlong,
Attorneys for Appellee
JUDGE M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN F ORSTER authored this Opinion,
in which J UDGES R YAN M. HARRIS and JOHN D. LUTHY concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:
¶1 	Christopher Dean Saunders appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a
traffic stop. Saunders contends that the State failed to establish
that 	the 	seizure 	of 	a 	small 	plastic 	baggie 	protruding 	from
underneath a cigarette pack on his lap was justified under the
plain view doctrine, because the incriminating nature of the
baggie was not immediately apparent. He further argues that the
1. See Sup. Ct. R. Pro. Prac. 4-807 (governing law student practice
in the courts of Utah).

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	2 	2026 UT App 103
absence of body camera footage undermined the court’s factual
findings and credibility determinations. We affirm.
BACKGROUND2
¶2 	Late on a winter evening, a detective (Detective) with the
Cedar City Police Department was on patrol with another officer
when they observed a vehicle being driven erratically. According
to Detective, the vehicle crossed lane lines, stopped improperly in
an 	intersection, 	and 	hesitated 	for 	about ten 	seconds before
proceeding once it had the right-of-way. Given this behavior, the
officers were suspicious that the driver might be under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, so they initiated a traffic stop.
¶3 	Two individuals were inside the vehicle: the driver and
Saunders, a passenger. The officers noted that both individuals
appeared nervous. The officers were informed that the vehicle
was a rental car, but neither occupant produced a copy of the
rental agreement.
¶4 	Upon returning to the patrol vehicle to run the vehicle
occupants’ information, Detective realized he did not have a copy
of the rental agreement. He then decided to return to the vehicle
to find out more about the agreement. As Detective approached
the vehicle for the second time, he was informed by dispatch that
Saunders 	was 	under 	Adult 	Probation 	and 	Parole 	(AP&P)
supervision.
¶5 	Once 	back 	at 	the 	vehicle, 	Detective 	noted 	that 	the
occupants had started smoking cigarettes. He asked for a copy of
the rental agreement, and Saunders and the driver looked inside
2. “In reviewing the [district] court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the
[district] court’s findings.” State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49, ¶ 4 n.1,
428 P.3d 1052 (quotation simplified).

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	3 	2026 UT App 103
the glove box. But they refused to check inside the center console
when Detective asked them to, which made Detective suspicious.
From his position outside the passenger side of the vehicle,
Detective saw that Saunders had an open cigarette pack on his lap.
Detective 	noticed 	a 	small 	plastic 	baggie 	protruding 	from
underneath the corner of the open lid of the pack. The baggie had
been rolled up and appeared to Detective to have fallen out of the
pack. Detective observed what appeared to be a white crystalline
substance inside the baggie. In Detective’s experience, narcotics
users 	commonly 	conceal 	drugs 	inside 	cigarette 	packs 	and
frequently package drugs in small, plastic baggies. For these
reasons, and based on his training and experience in narcotics
investigations, 	Detective 	believed 	the 	baggie 	contained
methamphetamine or another controlled substance.
¶6 	After observing the baggie, Detective directed Saunders to
exit 	the 	vehicle. 	The 	officers 	then 	searched 	Saunders 	and
discovered two syringes in his jacket pocket, one of which
appeared to contain blood residue.
¶7 	The officers seized the baggie and later conducted field
testing 	on 	the 	residue. 	The 	baggie 	tested 	negative 	for
methamphetamine. And a cocaine test was ultimately deemed
inconclusive 	because 	the 	quantity 	of 	residue 	present 	was
extremely small.
¶8 	Thereafter, the State charged Saunders with possession of
a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Saunders moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the
stop, arguing that Detective lacked probable cause to seize the
baggie, 	even 	under 	the 	plain 	view 	doctrine, 	because 	the
incriminating nature of the baggie was not immediately apparent.
In support of this claim, Saunders pointed to the negative and
inconclusive results from the field tests and asserted that because
the State still did not know what was in the baggie, there was no

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	4 	2026 UT App 103
way that its incriminating nature could have been immediately
apparent to Detective.
¶9 	The district court held an evidentiary hearing to consider
Saunders’s motion to suppress. At that hearing, the parties
discussed 	the 	available 	video 	evidence 	before 	presenting
testimony, most notably video footage from the other officer’s
body camera. Saunders emphasized that although Detective was
wearing a body camera during the stop, his camera was not
recording when he observed the baggie on Saunders’s lap or
during the seizure itself. The court then received all the available
footage into evidence. The State called two witnesses, Detective
and the other officer, who both testified as to the facts recounted
above. Saunders did not call any witnesses.
¶10 	Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court denied
Saunders’s motion to suppress. The court accepted Detective’s
version of events and concluded that the search and seizure of the
baggie was justified under the plain view doctrine because
Detective had lawfully observed the baggie in plain view and had
probable cause to believe it was associated with criminal activity.
Saunders thereafter entered a conditional guilty plea preserving
his right to challenge the suppression ruling on appeal.
ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶11 	Saunders now exercises his right to appeal the suppression
ruling. He contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress, arguing that the warrantless search and
seizure was not justified under the plain view doctrine because
the incriminating nature of the baggie was not immediately
apparent. “[W]e review a district court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation as a mixed
question of law and fact.” State v. Hebeishy, 2022 UT App 136, ¶ 12,
522 	P.3d 	952. 	Specifically, 	“we 	review 	the 	factual 	findings
underlying the [district] court’s decision to grant or deny a motion

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	5 	2026 UT App 103
to suppress evidence using a clearly erroneous standard.” State v.
Shepard, 955 P.2d 352, 354–55 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quotation
simplified). But “whether a specific set of facts gives rise to
reasonable suspicion [or probable cause] is a determination of law
and is reviewable nondeferentially for correctness.” Id. at 355
(quotation simplified).
ANALYSIS
¶12 	“Warrantless searches are unreasonable per se unless they
fall within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement of
the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Gallegos, 967 P.2d 973, 976 (Utah
Ct. App. 1998) (quotation simplified). One such exception is the
plain view doctrine. “A seizure is valid under the plain view
doctrine if (1) the officer is lawfully present, (2) the item is in plain
view, and (3) the item is clearly incriminating.” State v. Shepard,
955 P.2d 352, 357 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). “Evidence is clearly
incriminating if the officer observing it has probable cause to
associate the property with criminal activity.” Gallegos, 967 P.2d
at 976 (quotation simplified).
¶13 	Saunders does not dispute the legality of the initial traffic
stop, nor does he dispute that Detective was lawfully present at
the scene and that the seized baggie was in plain view. He argues
only that the search and seizure fails the third prong of the test
because 	the 	incriminating 	nature 	of 	the 	baggie 	was 	not
immediately apparent. But on this point Utah law does not
require certainty. Rather, the question is whether Detective had
“probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity.”
State v. Kelly, 718 P.2d 385, 390 (Utah 1986) (quotation simplified).
Probable cause requires only “a reasonable belief that certain
items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence
of a crime.” Id. (quotation simplified).
¶14 	The district court correctly concluded that Detective had
probable cause under the totality of the circumstances. Detective

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	6 	2026 UT App 103
testified that Saunders appeared nervous during the stop and that
he refused to look in the center console for the rental agreement,
which is an area where controlled substances are often located.
And Detective observed a small, rolled plastic baggie filled with
what appeared to be crystalline residue underneath the corner of
the lid of an open cigarette pack. Detective testified that based on
his 	training 	and 	experience, 	drug 	users 	commonly 	conceal
narcotics in cigarette packs and frequently package narcotics in
small, plastic baggies. Additionally, dispatch advised the officers
that Saunders was under AP&P supervision. Taken together,
these 	circumstances 	provided 	Detective 	with 	a 	practical,
commonsense 	basis 	to 	associate 	the 	baggie 	with 	probable
narcotics activity.
¶15 	Because Detective had probable cause to believe that the
baggie contained a controlled substance, the plain view doctrine
applied and the search was reasonable. Nevertheless, Saunders
argues that the district court’s determination should be set aside
because in announcing its ruling denying the motion to suppress,
the court “made no mention of important, undisputed facts that
weighed 	against 	[Detective’s] 	credibility.” 	In 	particular, 	he
contends that the court ignored that (1) Detective failed to record
the interaction with his body camera and (2) the baggie was
ultimately proven not to contain methamphetamine. We address
each argument in turn.
1. 	The Absence of Body Camera Footage from Detective Does
Not Require Suppression of the Baggie.
¶16 	Saunders argues that Detective’s failure to properly record
his interaction with Saunders undermines Detective’s credibility
and 	therefore 	defeats 	the 	district 	court’s 	probable 	cause
determination. We disagree.
¶17 	At 	the 	suppression 	hearing, 	the 	parties 	extensively
discussed the extent to which video footage of the interaction was
available. Saunders alerted the district court to the fact that

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	7 	2026 UT App 103
Detective had been wearing a body camera at the time he spotted
the baggie on Saunders’s lap but that this camera apparently did
not begin recording the encounter until after Detective discovered
the baggie. Yet after hearing the testimony and observing the
witnesses, the court expressly credited Detective’s account of the
encounter and found that he observed the protruding baggie and
apparent crystalline residue before seizing the item.
¶18 	That credibility determination is entitled to substantial
deference on appeal, regardless of whether there exists video
evidence to back it up. “Since a district court is in a unique
position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the
evidence, [an appellate court] may not substitute its judgment as
to a factual question unless the district court’s finding is clearly
erroneous.” State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 48, 63 P.3d 650. A
factual 	determination 	is 	clearly 	erroneous 	when 	it 	is 	“not
adequately supported by the record, resolving all disputes in the
evidence 	in 	a 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	the 	[district] 	court’s
determination.” State v. Hinmon, 2016 UT App 215, ¶ 21, 385 P.3d
751 (quotation simplified). This highly deferential standard is
“based on the presumption that the [district court], having
personally observed the quality of the evidence, the tenor of the
proceedings, and the demeanor of the parties, is in a better
position to perceive the subtleties at issue than we can looking
only at the cold record.” State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 23, 55 P.3d
573.
¶19 	Here, the absence of corroborating video evidence did not
compel 	the 	district 	court 	to 	reject 	Detective’s 	testimony,
particularly where the court had the opportunity to evaluate his
demeanor and other signs of credibility firsthand. Given that
there is nothing in the record that would render the court’s
credibility determination clearly erroneous, we are not at liberty
to second-guess the court’s assessment.

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	8 	2026 UT App 103
¶20 	Nor 	does 	the 	absence 	of 	body 	camera 	footage 	itself
establish a Fourth Amendment violation or require suppression.
On this point, Saunders directs our attention to Utah statutes that
permit a court to “provide an adverse inference instruction” to a
jury during a trial if a police officer failed to appropriately activate
a body camera during an encounter. See Utah Code §§ 77-7a-
104(2)(d), -104.1(2)(a). Though Saunders acknowledges that an
adverse inference instruction cannot be given when a court is
evaluating a motion to suppress because no jury is involved in
that determination, he nevertheless suggests that the policy
rationale underlying the adverse inference statute should still be
considered in this case. That is, he argues that Detective’s failure
to activate his body camera at the outset of his encounter with
Saunders, despite his statutory obligation to do so, “should have
undermined his credibility.” But even assuming that this statute
has some application here, under no circumstances would the
missing 	footage 	automatically 	render 	Detective’s 	testimony
unreliable or mandate exclusion of evidence; it would merely
permit his credibility to be discounted. See id. § 77-7a-104.1(2)(a)
(stating 	that 	a 	court 	“may 	provide 	an 	adverse 	inference
instruction” (emphasis added)).
¶21 	More importantly, probable cause may rest upon credible
officer testimony even in the absence of video corroboration. The
Fourth Amendment does not impose a body camera requirement
before an officer’s observations may support probable cause. The
question remains whether the facts credited by the district court
established a fair probability that the item seized was associated
with criminal activity.
¶22 	In this case, the district court reasonably concluded that
they did. Detective testified that he observed a small, rolled plastic
baggie protruding from under the open lid of Saunders’s cigarette
pack, that the baggie appeared to contain a crystalline substance,
and that, based on his training and experience in narcotics
investigations, the packaging and substance were consistent with

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	9 	2026 UT App 103
narcotics possession. The district court, after directly observing
Detective’s 	testimony 	and 	considering 	the 	totality 	of 	the
circumstances, 	was 	entitled 	to 	credit 	that 	testimony
notwithstanding the absence of video footage.
¶23 	Saunders’s argument ultimately asks this court to reweigh
the evidence and second-guess the district court’s credibility
findings. But that is not our role on appellate review. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s ruling,
we 	cannot 	say 	the 	court 	clearly 	erred 	in finding 	Detective
credible.3
2. 	The Later Field-Test Results Did Not Negate Probable
Cause.
¶24 	Saunders 	also 	argues 	that 	the 	later 	negative 	and
inconclusive 	field-test 	results 	of 	the 	residue 	in 	the 	baggie
3. As part of his argument that the district court erred in assessing
Detective’s credibility, Saunders points to body camera footage
from the other officer showing that during the initial encounter,
Detective may have briefly placed his hand inside the vehicle’s
passenger window. Saunders does not assert that this alleged
conduct 	constituted 	an 	independent 	Fourth 	Amendment
violation 	requiring 	suppression. 	Rather, 	he 	argues 	that 	the
incident demonstrated that Detective had a cavalier attitude
toward constitutional limitations and that this attitude should
have served to undermine Detective’s credibility more generally.
But the court was aware of the video and nevertheless found
Detective credible after observing his testimony and demeanor
firsthand. As explained above, we afford substantial deference to
those credibility determinations because the district court “is in a
better position to perceive the subtleties at issue than we can
looking only at the cold record.” State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86,
¶ 23, 55 P.3d 573. On this record, the potential intrusion does not
render the court’s credibility findings clearly erroneous.

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	10 	2026 UT App 103
demonstrate that Detective lacked probable cause at the time of
the seizure. This argument misunderstands the nature of probable
cause review.
¶25 	Probable cause is assessed from the perspective of the
officer at the moment of the seizure, based on the facts then
known to the officer. See State v. Lloyd, 2011 UT App 323, ¶ 11, 263
P.3d 557. Later developments do not retroactively invalidate an
otherwise reasonable determination. See State v. Kelly, 718 P.2d
385, 390 (Utah 1986) (explaining that probable cause does not
require that the officer ultimately “be correct” in his or her belief
(quotation simplified)); State v. Shepard, 955 P.2d 352, 357 (Utah
Ct. App. 1998) (“Probable cause requires only that the police
officer reasonably believe that certain items may be contraband or
stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not
demand any showing that such belief be correct.” (quotation
simplified)).
¶26 	Here, the methamphetamine field test was negative, while
the cocaine test was inconclusive because only a minute amount
of residue was present. Those later results do not establish that
Detective acted unreasonably when he initially believed the
residue 	was 	narcotics. 	The 	district 	court 	therefore 	correctly
declined to treat the later test results as dispositive of the Fourth
Amendment inquiry.
CONCLUSION
¶27 	Because Detective had probable cause to believe that the
baggie that he saw in plain view contained a controlled substance,
the plain view doctrine applied and the search was reasonable.
Saunders’s appellate arguments are appropriately viewed as
challenges to the district court’s credibility determinations and
the manner in which the court weighed the evidence. But given
the 	court’s 	advantaged 	position 	to 	personally 	observe 	the

State v. Saunders
20230492-CA 	11 	2026 UT App 103
evidence and witnesses, we will not, on this record, second-guess
those determinations. Affirmed.