 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Keener8/21/2003
The State appeals from the trial court's grant of a motion to suppress drugs found during an inventory search pursuant to the arrest of Troy Edward Keener ("Defendant"). For reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
The parties stipulate to the following facts: While Officer Munzinger had a suspected drug house under surveillance, he saw a car pull up. He also observed Defendant get out and enter the house. When Defendant returned, Munzinger saw him sit on the passenger's side, and the person who had been his passenger drove away from the scene. Munzinger relayed his observations to two other officers, who spotted the car speeding and pulled it over.
The driver identified herself as the car's owner. Defendant also provided identification, and a computer check revealed that his driver's license had been suspended. The officers arrested him for driving on a suspended license, and when they searched the car, found a rock of cocaine on a tool bag. Defendant admitted that the tool bag was his, and the officers then arrested him for possession of narcotic drugs, a class 4 felony.
Defendant moved to suppress the cocaine on the ground that Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") subsection 13-3883(B) (2001), which allows an officer to stop and detain a person to investigate a traffic violation, did not apply because the violation had not occurred in the arresting officers' presence. Thus, according to Defendant, no probable cause supported the arrest and the cocaine must be suppressed.
The State responded that probable cause to arrest may be based on the collective knowledge of the officers. It cited State v. Sanchez, 192 Ariz. 454, 457 n.2, 10, 967 P.2d 129, 132 n.2 (App. 1998); State v. Williams, 182 Ariz. 548, 557, 898 P.2d 497, 506 (App. 1995); and United States v. Sutton, 794 F.2d 1415, 1426 (9th Cir. 1986), for support.
At a hearing on the motion, the parties stipulated to the facts of the arrest and search. The trial court found that Munzinger's observation of Defendant as the driver of a car that stopped at a suspected drug house "did not alone provide probable cause" to arrest him for the offense of driving on a suspended license. The court also found that subsections 13-3883(A)(2) and -3883(B) require that a misdemeanor be committed in the arresting officer's presence and that these provisions "contradict" subsection 13-3883(A)(4), which allows a warrantless arrest on probable cause for a misdemeanor even if the offense is not committed in the officer's presence. The court concluded, however, that because subsection 13-3883(B) specifically addresses traffic offenses, it overrides the more general statute on misdemeanors so that a traffic misdemeanor must be committed in the arresting officer's presence.
The trial court further noted that cases permitting the collective knowledge of police officers to constitute probable cause all involved felony offenses and did not apply when the offense for which the police arrested Defendant was a misdemeanor. Thus, the court found Defendant's arrest illegal and granted his motion to suppress. The State timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Interpretation of statutes is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Getz, 189 Ariz. 561, 563, 944 P.2d 503, 505 (1997). Generally, we apply the plain and unambiguous language as it is written unless to do so would produce an absurd or impossible result. State v. Petrak, 198 Ariz. 260, 264, 10, 8 P.3d 1174, 1178 (App. 2000). When the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress presents a purely legal question, our review is de novo. State v. Valenzuela, 182
Page 1 2 3 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|