The Utah Court of Appeals has overturned a ruling by 3rd District Judge Leslie Lewis on the question of an unlawful search — and it's not the first time.
The court said the judge erred when she allowed the evidence obtained in the search of a man's car to be used in obtaining a drug-possession conviction.
In December 1998, Shayne Hansen was pulled over by Midvale police Officer Bruce Huntington for making an illegal left turn. He was driving without insurance but had no outstanding warrants, according to the court's summary of the case.
After Huntington returned Hansen's license and registration, the officer began questioning the man about possession of drugs or firearms and eventually conducted a search of the vehicle.
Huntington found a marijuana pipe and a substance he suspected to be methamphetamine.
At trial, Lewis denied the motion of Hansen's attorneys that the evidence obtained in the search be thrown out because Hansen had been "illegally detained" and did not voluntarily consent to the search of his car.
The Court of Appeals overturned Lewis, saying in a ruling issued earlier this month that she "erred in determining that Hansen gave his clear and unequivocal consent to the search."
The case bears a resemblance to an appellate court ruling in November in which police detained a woman while running a warrants check. While waiting for the results, officers searched her and found heroin.
Lewis allowed the evidence, but the Court of Appeals ruled that the woman had been illegally detained while the police held her ID.
In May, the appellate court overruled Lewis in a case involving a woman whose bag was searched and drug paraphernalia found.
The Utah Supreme Court has ruled on the question of disciplinary action against judges who make legal errors.
In 1996, it said, "A judge has not behaved improperly simply because he has committed an error."
The "entire appellate process is in place because it is expected that judges will err occasionally," the opinion states. "This does not mean that they are not functioning properly as judges, only that they are human beings functioning within a human institution where different people can see things differently."
The Judicial Conduct Commission, which handles complaints against judges, concerns itself only with judges who have behaved outside "ethical norms," the high court said.
E-mail: mtitze@desnews.com