5/6/16 In State v. Angel Pete Ruiz, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0036, (4/27/16), the defendant was charged with multiple offenses including aggravated robbery. The relevant facts are as follows: in November 2013, a homeland security agent (Agent) conducting undercover surveillance at a truck stop watched six to eight men move bales of marijuana from a trailer to a sedan. Agent called for backup, but the vehicles sped away in vehicles, which included a SUV, before they arrived. A civilian, L.H., approached Agent to share that he had just witnessed the incident. While Agent was speaking with L.H. three people jumped out of the SUV, pointed a gun at L.H. and Agent, and removed an envelope containing about $380 from L.H’s pocket. Agent told the suspects the police were coming and two suspects left in the SUV, but crashed a short distance away and then fled on foot into the desert. While the search for suspects was ongoing, a truck driver told another detective that a man had approached him at a truck stop and asked for a ride. The detective entered the truck stop and found the defendant, Ruiz, who matched the description given by the truck driver. The defendant was breathing heavily, his hands were shaky and he looked disheveled. The detective took him outside for a one-person “show-up,” and L.H. immediately identified the defendant as one of the three men from the SUV. As a result of the show-up, additional evidence was obtained implicating the defendant in the crime and the defendant was convicted for multiple offenses and sentenced to 47.25 years in prison.
On appeal the defendant contended the trial court had erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. In support of his motion the defendant contended the detective had no right to hold him for the show-up because at the time the detective made contact with the defendant he had no reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed a crime, and therefore the stop was not a valid Terry stop (see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). If the defendant’s argument had been found to be correct the State would not have been able to use against the defendant all of the evidence which had been obtained as a result of the stop.
According to the court of appeals “[I]f police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.” Also, “‘Reasonable suspicion is something short of probable cause, but more than a mere“ inchoate hunch. In assessing whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify a stop, officers may rely on their training and experience “to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them. The officer’s assessment, like that of a reviewing court, is based on the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture’ of what occurred at the scene.”
The court of appeals held that facts available to the detective at the time he made contact with the defendant and held him for the show-up was enough to show reasonable suspicion the defendant was involved in the robbery, and therefore the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.
The case is located at:
https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CR20150036Opinion.pdf
If you’ve been charged with DUI or another criminal offense, getting help from an experienced and knowledgeable lawyer is one of the best things you can do for your case. Gordon Thompson has been practicing criminal and DUI law since 1979, and has used his vast experience to help countless people charged with DUI and other criminal offenses get the best result. Call Gordon Thompson now, 24/7, so he can put his many years of experience to use and help you get the best result for your DUI or criminal case.
