State v. Jaramillo, 2026 UT 20

Facts of the case

Police stopped Anthony Ernesto Jaramillo for a traffic violation late at night. After smelling marijuana, officers searched his vehicle and discovered:

• A handgun under the driver’s seat;
• Marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms in a backpack; and
• Information from Jaramillo’s brother suggesting that additional drug evidence might be found at their home.

An officer then applied electronically for two search warrants:

1. A warrant to search the residence for drugs and related evidence; and
2. A warrant to obtain Jaramillo’s blood and DNA—blood to test for drugs and DNA to connect him to the handgun.

The officer intended to request permission to execute both warrants at night but inadvertently failed to select the required box in the electronic application. As a result, both applications requested daytime execution only, and both warrants expressly authorized execution only during daytime hours—between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Nevertheless, police executed both warrants at night. The residence search produced additional drugs and a box matching the handgun found in the vehicle. Jaramillo was charged with four controlled-substance offenses and possession of a firearm by a restricted person.

Jaramillo’s argument

Jaramillo moved to suppress the evidence obtained under the warrants, arguing that executing daytime-only warrants at night violated:

• Rule 40(e)(1) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
• The Fourth Amendment.

Rule 40 generally requires warrants to be executed during daytime hours unless the application provides sufficient grounds for nighttime execution and the magistrate specifically authorizes it.

Jaramillo’s fundamental position was that the requirement of prior judicial approval for a nighttime search is substantive and cannot be excused merely because:

• The officer intended to request nighttime authority;
• The magistrate probably would have granted it; or
• The searches were conducted peacefully.

Allowing officers to make that decision themselves would eliminate the magistrate’s required review of the heightened privacy concerns associated with nighttime searches.

The State’s argument

The State conceded that executing the warrants at night violated Rule 40(e)(1), but argued that a procedural-rule violation does not automatically require suppression.

Under State v. Fixel and State v. Rowe, suppression is appropriate only if the violation:

1. Also violated the defendant’s constitutional rights;
2. Resulted from an intentional, bad-faith disregard of the rule; or
3. Substantially prejudiced the defendant—meaning the search would not have occurred or would have been less intrusive if the rule had been followed.

The State argued that none of those circumstances existed because:

• The officer’s omission was inadvertent;
• The magistrate likely would have authorized nighttime execution; and
• The searches were peaceful and no more intrusive because of the timing.

District court’s decision

The district court suppressed the evidence.

It specifically found that the officer did not act maliciously or deliberately attempt to evade Rule 40. It also recognized that the magistrate likely would have approved nighttime execution and that the searches were peaceful.

Nevertheless, the district court concluded that suppression was necessary because police bypassed an important procedural safeguard: the requirement that a magistrate—not an officer—decide whether nighttime execution was justified.

Utah Supreme Court’s decision

The Utah Supreme Court unanimously reversed the suppression order and remanded the case.

The Court held that violating Rule 40(e)(1), by itself, does not justify suppression. Under Fixel and Rowe, suppression is available only when the rule violation:

• Amounts to a constitutional violation;
• Was committed in bad faith; or
• Substantially prejudiced the defendant.

Here, the district court found no bad faith and effectively found no substantial prejudice. Although Jaramillo also alleged constitutional violations, the district court never actually decided whether the searches violated the Fourth Amendment or the Utah Constitution.

Because the district court suppressed the evidence solely based on the Rule 40 violation, it applied the wrong legal standard.

Ultimate holding

Executing a daytime-only search warrant at night violates Rule 40(e)(1), but that procedural violation does not automatically require suppression.

Suppression requires an additional finding of a constitutional violation, bad faith, or substantial prejudice. The Supreme Court did not decide whether these nighttime searches were unconstitutional; it left that issue open for the district court to address on remand.