## Facts

- A Logan City police officer went to Jeffery and Dianna South’s home to investigate a report of a stolen cellular phone.
- Jeffery South answered the door and refused the officer’s request to enter the residence.
- The officer reported smelling a strong odor of burning marijuana coming from inside the home and from Jeffery’s clothing.
- Police obtained a search warrant and returned to the Souths’ property.
- The warrant was defective on its face because it authorized a search of “the persons of Jeffery Earl and Dianna South,” not a search of the premises.
- Officers nonetheless searched the residence and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
- The Souths were charged with drug-related offenses, including possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia within 1,000 feet of a church.
- Before trial, the Souths moved to suppress, arguing the home search was illegal because it exceeded the warrant’s express scope.
- The trial court denied suppression, reasoning that the odor of burning marijuana supplied probable cause to search despite the warrant defect.
- The Souths were convicted and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether officers could lawfully search the Souths’ residence when the warrant, on its face, authorized only a search of the Souths’ persons.
2. Whether the odor of burning marijuana provided probable cause, and whether the circumstances supported treating the search as permissible without relying on the defective warrant.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia found in the home.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals treated the challenge as directed to the legality of the search as conducted (effectively, a search not authorized by the warrant’s text), rather than as a dispute over whether the warrant could be read more broadly through related documents.
- The court concluded the officer’s detection of burning marijuana supported probable cause to believe marijuana was present in the home.
- The court held that the situation also justified proceeding without reliance on the warrant’s defective premises language because marijuana is readily destructible and the circumstances indicated a risk the evidence would be destroyed before police could secure the scene and correct the defect.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of suppression and affirmed the Souths’ convictions.

## Legal Principles

- A warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched; a warrant authorizing only a search of persons does not, by its terms, authorize a search of a residence.
- The smell of burning marijuana detected by an officer can support probable cause to believe marijuana is present.
- A home search conducted without valid warrant authority may be upheld if the State shows both probable cause and a recognized justification for acting immediately, such as a reasonable risk that evidence will be destroyed.
- On appeal, review focuses on the basis of the ruling challenged; a party generally may not shift the case to a different, unrelated ground to defend the result.

## Conclusion

In State v. South, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of suppression and the resulting convictions, holding that although the warrant was facially limited to searching the Souths’ persons, the officer’s plain smell of burning marijuana supplied probable cause and the risk of rapid destruction of drug evidence supported treating the residential search as permissible without relying on the defective warrant’s wording.


State v. South, 885 P.2d 795 (1994)