Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that the trial court erred when it refused to suppress the use at trial of drugs and illegal weapons found in a search of an alleged shoplifter’s backpack.
In the case, State v. Synder, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0077, 10/7/16, the defendant was detained and handcuffed as a possible shoplifter by a store security guard and taken to a small room. When the defendant was detained he suffered a broken knee cap. The defendant had a backpack with him and the backpack was placed in a different room from the defendant. A police officer came into the room where the defendant was, advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and then questioned him. The police officer said he was going to arrest the defendant but did not actually do so and instead the defendant was transported to a hospital for medical treatment for his knee injury. After the officer decided to arrest the defendant (but did not actually do so), at the officer’s direction the security guard searched the defendant’s backpack and found illegal drugs and illegally possessed weapons.
The defendant was eventually indicted for drug offenses and illegal possession of weapons.
The defendant then moved to suppress from use at trial the evidence obtained from the search of his backpack, alleging the backpack had been illegally searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. . When doing so the defendant alleged he had never been arrested and so the search of his backpack was neither a search incident to an arrest, nor a search under the Exigent Circumstances doctrine, which could justify searches of an arrestee’s property which is within his “grabbable distance” and which could contain instruments or weapons which the arrestee could use to endanger an officer’s safety. Without legal justification under either of these doctrines the search would have been illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion by holding that the defendant had been arrested as of the time of the search and the contents of the backpack would have been discovered anyway after he was searched for transport to the jail and booked. [Inevitable Discovery Rule].
The defendant then went to trial, was found guilty and sentenced to prison.
On appeal the court of appeals reversed the convictions by holding the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.
The court of appeals said that defendant was in fact placed under arrest when he was handcuffed and placed in the small room. However when under arrest the backpack was not within his “grabbable distance” (plus he was handcuffed) and therefore the defendant was not a threat to take weapons out of the backpack and so the search could not be justified as a search incident to the arrest. The search could also not be justified under the Inevitable Discovery doctrine (here a search incident to a booking into the jail) because he was not taken to jail but rather to a hospital, and therefore was not going to be searched as a part of the booking process (because there was no booking). Therefore, the court of appeals said the backpack had been illegally searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the use of the fruits of the search (the drugs and weapons) should have been suppressed and not used at trial.
The Case, State v. Synder, can be found at:
https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CR20150077%20Opinion.pdf
To read my previous blog post about the elements of a felony shoplifting charge, click HERE.
Gordon Thompson
For more information about Arizona dui and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions. Website: https://GordonThompsonAttorney.net
