rule is to be applied are so complex and varying that no rule adequately addressing the relevance of all these facts can be spelled out," id. at 989; (2) whether "the situation to which the legal principle is to be applied is sufficiently new to the courts that appellate judges are unable to anticipate and articulate definitively what factors should be outcome determinative," id.; (8) whether "the trial judge has observed 'facts,' such as a witness's appearance and demeanor, relevant to the application of the law that cannot be adequately reflected in the record available to appellate courts," id.; and (4) whether there are policy reasons that weigh for or against granting discretion to district courts, such as when substantial constitutional rights are implicated, see id. at 988-39 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Brake, 2004 UT 95, ¶¶
recognizing such balance of interests holding that the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rules are not implicated by a private search holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion holding that there is no violation of the fourth amendment when the government reasonably believed that the individual giving consent to the search had authority to do so recognizing the interest of having uniform legal rules regarding consent to search given the substantial fourth amendment interests lost as a result of such consents as a policy reason opposing a grant of discretion to the district court