419 P.3d 950
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- Alexis Diaz was arrested and charged with DUI; after arrest an officer read an admonition based on A.R.S. § 28-1321 and asked whether she would submit to breath testing; Diaz agreed and provided breath samples.
- Diaz moved to suppress the breath-test results, arguing her agreement was coerced by the admonition and therefore involuntary under the Fourth Amendment and Arizona law; the state argued the search-incident-to-arrest exception or good-faith reliance on Valenzuela justified admission.
- Tucson City Court granted Diaz’s motion to suppress, concluding the admonition rendered consent coerced and the state failed to prove good faith; the state appealed to superior court.
- The superior court agreed the consent was involuntary but applied Valenzuela’s good-faith exception and reversed the suppression; Diaz petitioned this court for special action review.
- The Court of Appeals held Fourth Amendment suppression was not required because Birchfield permits a warrantless breath test as a search incident to lawful DUI arrest; it also held § 28-1321 requires an "agreement" to be voluntary under state law but found the officer’s admonition here was not coercive and Diaz’s agreement was voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment requires voluntariness for breath tests after DUI arrest | Diaz: breath-test consent must be voluntary; otherwise suppression required | State: warrantless breath test is valid as search incident to lawful arrest (Birchfield) so voluntariness not required | Held: Fourth Amendment does not require voluntariness; breath test admissible as search incident to arrest (Birchfield) |
| Whether Arizona Constitution (art II, §8) provides greater protection than federal law for breath tests | Diaz: state constitutional protection is broader, so voluntary consent required | State: state law follows federal precedent permitting search incident to arrest | Held: Arizona Constitution provides no greater protection here; search-incident rule applies (Navarro) |
| Whether A.R.S. § 28-1321 requires that a violator’s agreement be voluntary | Diaz: statute and precedent require voluntary (knowing) agreement; admonition was coercive | State: statutory scheme allows informing of consequences and does not render agreement involuntary | Held: Agreement required by § 28-1321 must be voluntary; semantic and precedent support voluntariness (Hays, Carrillo) |
| Whether the officer’s admonition here was coercive such that Diaz’s agreement was involuntary | Diaz: phrasing ("Arizona law states") implied compulsion, coercing assent | State: admonition accurately recited statute; Valenzuela allows advising of statutory consequences; officer did not state requirement | Held: Admonition accurately described statute and was not coercive; Diaz’s agreement was voluntary and results admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Valenzuela v. State, 239 Ariz. 299 (2016) (explains permissible admonitions and steps officers should take to avoid coercion when seeking consent to testing)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible as search incident to lawful DUI arrest)
- Navarro v. State, 241 Ariz. 19 (App. 2016) (applies Birchfield to Arizona DUI breath testing and rejects broader state-constitutional protection)
- Carrillo v. Houser, 224 Ariz. 463 (2010) (agreement to testing must be express; examines what words or conduct suffice to manifest assent)
- State v. Superior Court (Hays), 155 Ariz. 403 (1987) (interprets DUI statutes to require an intelligent/knowing refusal; voluntariness implicit)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (describes scope of search-incident-to-arrest exception)
- State v. Brita, 154 Ariz. 517 (1987) (evidence obtained absent statutorily required consent is unlawfully taken)