## Facts

- A.F. reported multiple domestic-violence incidents by her husband, Gregory Lee Farrow, including: an April 1994 assault while she was pregnant; an October 1994 incident involving a gun and threats; and an October 1994 incident in which Farrow took the baby, interfered with her attempt to leave, and prevented her from calling 911.
- A.F. relocated to a safe house due to fear for her safety and reported continuing threats to kill her and the baby.
- On November 5, 1994, a Beaver City police officer received a report that A.F. was in a safe house and interviewed her that day; based on her statements, the officer concluded there was probable cause of domestic-violence offenses and a continuing threat.
- On November 6, 1994, officers arrested Farrow without a warrant after information indicated he was in the area with a weapon.
- After Farrow’s vehicle was impounded, officers conducted an inventory search and found a handgun, loaded magazines, and methamphetamine.
- Farrow was convicted of assault (jury trial), possession of a controlled substance (jury trial), and possession of a handgun by a felon (bench trial).
- The trial court denied Farrow’s motion to suppress, finding the warrantless arrest authorized by Utah’s domestic-violence arrest statute and the inventory search lawful.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah’s domestic-violence warrantless-arrest statute authorized Farrow’s warrantless arrest when the last reported incident occurred roughly two weeks earlier, and whether suppression was required for evidence found during the ensuing inventory search.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held the warrantless arrest was authorized under Utah Code § 77-36-2 because the officer was “responding to a domestic violence call,” had probable cause to believe qualifying domestic-violence offenses occurred, and had a reasonable basis to believe the victim remained in danger.
- Because the arrest was lawful, the evidence recovered in the inventory search was not subject to suppression.

## Legal Principles

- Under Utah’s domestic-violence warrantless-arrest statute (as then in effect), an officer “responding to a domestic violence call” may arrest without a warrant when there is probable cause to believe a qualifying domestic-violence offense occurred and evidence supports a reasonable belief of continuing danger to the victim.
- The statute’s text does not require that the arrest occur contemporaneously with the last physical assault or during an “ongoing emergency.”
- When a warrantless arrest is lawful, evidence discovered in a subsequent inventory search conducted pursuant to standard impound procedures is not suppressible as fruit of an unlawful arrest.
- If a constitutional challenge to a statute is not preserved, appellate review may be limited to statutory interpretation and application of probable-cause standards.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a warrantless domestic-violence arrest made after a reported pattern of abuse and threats, concluding the statute permitted arrest without a strict immediacy requirement when probable cause and continuing danger existed; the inventory-search discovery of a firearm and drugs was therefore admissible, and the convictions were affirmed.


State v. Farrow, 919 P.2d 50 (Utah Ct. App. 1996)