Police officers must have probable cause in order to arrest a person. The Utah Supreme Court defines probable cause justifying an arrest as facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. The trial court is required to consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the officer had probable cause to arrest Defendant. State v. Spurgeon 904 P.2d 226.

An arresting officer may, without a warrant, lawfully search the area surrounding the person he or she is arresting if: (1) the arrest is lawful, (2) the search is of the area within the arrestee's immediate control, and (3) the search is conducted contemporaneously to the arrest. State v. Amirkhizi 2004 UT App 324.  In other words, if a person is arrested, police officers may search a persons clothing and the passenger compartment of a vehicle, if the arrest was the result of a traffic stop.  If the stop occurred in a home, the police may search that area within the arrestee's "reach and grab", including closed drawers.

The second type of warrantless search pursuant to an arrest is an inventory search.  The most frequent types of inventory searches are of a person's clothing and the contents of a vehicle.  Three purposes of an inventory search were outlined: (1) to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of police; (2) to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property; and (3) to protect police officers from danger.  As a practical matter, police officers use inventory searches as an excuse to thoroughly search vehicles for potential contraband or weapons.  Frequently, the single biggest issue in a case is often  whether the search of defendant's automobile went beyond the legitimate scope of an inventory search. The question depends on the specific facts of the case, but police are allowed wide latitude in conducting inventory searches.

Anyone who owns a television knows their Miranda rights.  You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you if you cannot afford one.  Under Miranda, the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.  Miranda warnings must be given to a defendant subject to “custodial interrogation,” which means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.  An encounter with police constitutes an “interrogation” for purposes of Miranda if it involves any words or actions on the part of the police, other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody, that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.  Although subjective intent of police in asking question is relevant, for purposes of determining whether question was likely to elicit incriminating response so that Miranda warnings were required, the main focus is on whether suspect is likely to incriminate himself in response. The likelihood of incrimination must be determined from all of the circumstances; the same question may constitute interrogation in one situation but not in another. For example, in United States v. Poole, the court noted that asking for name, date of birth, and similar routine biographical data is ordinarily not an interrogation, but it was interrogation when asked immediately after showing a bank robbery suspect surveillance photos of the robbery and mentioning his accomplice by name. Moreover, in determining whether a question is or is not interrogation, the relationship between the question's subject matter and the suspected criminal act is highly significant.