The Utah Court of Appeals held:
(1) The district court correctly concluded that Detective had probable cause to believe that the baggie he saw in plain view contained a controlled substance, and as such, the plain view doctrine applied and the search was reasonable.
(2) The district court did not clearly err in finding Detective credible, and the lack of Detective’s body camera footage, as well as the later negative field- test results, did not negate Detective’s probable cause at the time of the seizure.