February 14, 2013, Utah Court of Appeals Cases

February 14, 2013

Utah Court of Appeals Cases

Bates v. Utah Assoc. of Realtors, 2013 UT App 34, No. 20120067-CA (February 14, 2013).

Judge Orme:

The Court affirms that “the [one year] statute of limitations for defamation governs claims based on the same operative facts that would support a defamation action.”

They assert that Appellant has not pointed to any specific facts in its complaint that show his claims were not based on the same operative facts as his defamation claim.

State v. Ruvalcaba, 2013 UT App 35, No. 20120062-CA (February 14, 2013).

Per Curium:

Appellant argues that investigating officer improperly extended an initial stop without reasonable suspicion.

When the officer initially observed the vehicle it was parked in the middle of a dirt road with its motor running and its lights on. The officer turned on his overhead lights and got no response from anyone in the vehicle. He then proceeded to the vehicle where he found Ruvalcaba slumped over the steering wheel with a gun on the dashboard. The officer had to yell and knock twice on the window before Ruvalcaba responded. When he did respond, Ruvalcaba appeared disoriented, groggy, and his eyes were red and watery. These circumstances justified the officer’s question to Ruvalcaba about whether he had been drinking. Ruvalcaba’s subsequent statement that he had been drinking, but “not too much,”

Normally, police must end the stop when the initial purpose for the stop is concluded. See State v. Hensen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 31, 63 P.3d 650. However, “[i]f, during the scope of the traffic stop, the officer forms new reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may also expediently investigate his new suspicion.” State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶ 13, 229 P.3d 650.

Court affirms that based on the totality of the circumstance, the officer had a reasonable suspicion that Appellant was driving while intoxicated, and he was justified in asking him to exit the vehicle and take the field sobriety tests.

In re T.O., C.O., A.O., and H.O., 2013 UT App 36, No. 20120964-CA (February 14, 2013).

Per Curium:

Mother appeals termination of parental rights.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, in light of the evidence supporting the finding, it is against the clear weight of the evidence.

“although the court has a duty to look forward—i.e., to look at the parent’s present ability and the likelihood that the parent will be able to resume parenting within a reasonable time—the court must consider such evidence in light of the parent’s past conduct and its debilitating effect on the parent‐child relationship.”

The court reviews the evidence regarding Mother’s inability to provide a home for a substantial period of time despite help and finds there is evidence to support the Juvenile Court’s decision.