A recent decision from the Utah Court of Appeals, State v. Hintze, clarifies an important question for anyone interacting with police in Utah: When does a conversation or encounter cross the line from a voluntary interaction into a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment? This distinction is vital in criminal defense, because if a seizure occurs without proper legal justification (like “reasonable suspicion”), any evidence found as a result can potentially be excluded from court through a motion to suppress.
Let’s break down the court’s ruling:
Case: State v. Hintze, 2025 UT App 82 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 30, 2025)Opinion No. 20200787-CA
Quick Summary: The Utah Court of Appeals ruled that a man sitting on a park bench was unlawfully seized by police before he was asked for his name because the officers’ actions—their number, positioning, and immediate questioning—would have made a reasonable person feel they were not free to leave. The court found this seizure happened without the necessary “reasonable suspicion,” meaning the evidence obtained as a result (like his name and sex offender status) should be suppressed. This decision reinforces Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures, a key area in criminal defensecases in Utah.
Facts: This case involved Chad Hintze, who had a prior conviction for attempted unlawful sexual activity with a minor in 2011. Because of this sexual offense conviction, he was required to register as a sex offender. Under Utah law, it is a crime for registered sex offenders, with limited exceptions, to be in a “protected area” like a community park.
In June 2016, three uniformed officers on bike patrol saw Hintze sitting on a park bench with a teenage girl. The officers stopped their bikes directly in front of and to the side of the bench where Hintze and the teenager were sitting, positioning themselves and their bikes in a way that blocked their path if they tried to leave.
Almost immediately after approaching, one officer asked their ages and how they knew each other. Hintze initially said they were siblings but gave shifting explanations when the officer expressed doubt. About a minute into the encounter, the officer asked Hintze for his name and birthdate, which he provided. While this was happening, another officer ran a check using Hintze’s name and discovered he was a registered sex offender. This information led to Hintze being charged with violation by sex offender of protected area, a charge related to protective order violations and his prior history.
Hintze filed a motion asking the court to suppress the information the officers obtained, arguing he had been “seized” unlawfully before he gave them his name because the officers’ actions made him feel he wasn’t free to leave, and they didn’t have reasonable suspicion at that point. The district court denied his motion, finding the initial encounter was consensual and only became a higher level of stop (requiring reasonable suspicion) later.
Legal Issue(s): The main legal question was whether Hintze was “seized” under the Fourth Amendment at the moment the officer asked for his name. If he was seized at that point, the court then had to determine if the officers had “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity at that exact moment to justify the seizure.
Holding: The Utah Court of Appeals held that Hintze was indeed seized before he gave his name to the officers, and this seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress.
Reasoning: The court looked at the “totality of the circumstances” to determine if a reasonable person in Hintze’s position would have felt free to leave. Several factors indicated a seizure occurred early in the encounter:
• Presence of Multiple Officers: Three uniformed, armed officers approaching two citizens suggested a show of authority.
• Positioning: The officers parked their bikes directly in front of and to the side of the bench, effectively blocking Hintze’s path if he tried to walk away. The court found this positioning particularly significant, distinguishing it from cases where officers parked but didn’t block exits.
•Nature of Questioning: The questioning began almost immediately and quickly became accusatory when the officer expressed doubt about Hintze’s initial answer regarding his relationship with the teenager. The court noted that accusatory questions can make a person feel they are not free to leave.
• The court also distinguished this situation from others (like factory workers in Delgadoor bus passengers in Drayton) where individuals had already voluntarily restricted their movement. Hintze was in a public park and free to leave until the officers’ actions restricted him.
Considering all these factors, the court concluded that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave at the moment the officer asked for Hintze’s name.
The court then addressed whether the officers had “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity at that moment to justify the seizure. The State argued that the age and complexion difference between Hintze and the teenager, plus Hintze’s shifting story, created reasonable suspicion. However, the court found that at the moment Hintze was seized (when asked for his name), his story had not yet meaningfully shifted. The initial facts—sitting on a bench in a public park during the day, not touching, hiding, or trying to flee—were not enough on their own to create a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was happening.
Because the seizure happened before there was reasonable suspicion to support it, it violated the Fourth Amendment.
Why It Matters: This decision is significant for criminal defense in Utah because it provides clear guidance on what police actions constitute a seizure. It emphasizes that even without a direct command to stay, citizens can be considered “seized” if officers’ numbers, positioning, and questioning create an environment where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. The case also highlights the importance of timing – reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the seizure. Evidence obtained through an unlawful seizure can be suppressed. The case has been sent back to the lower court to determine exactly what evidence, beyond the statement giving his name, should be suppressed as a result of the unlawful seizure.
Takeaway for Defendants: If you are approached by police, understanding your rights is crucial. The way officers position themselves and the nature of their questions can impact whether an encounter is consensual or a detention. If you are facing criminal charges, particularly those involving potential Fourth Amendment violations related to searches or seizures, it is critical to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney can evaluate whether police acted lawfully and determine if key evidence against you might be suppressed.