Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state
CR-16-0422-PR
| Ariz. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Petitioner Mohamed Samiuddin was charged with multiple counts of public sexual indecency after alleged exposure at his apartment window; he maintains innocence and disputes post-exposure interaction with victims.
- At arraignment he was released on own recognizance but with conditions: reside apart from family and have no contact with minors under any circumstance.
- Samiuddin moved to modify conditions to allow unsupervised contact with his minor children and to return home; the court later allowed contact only with a court-approved monitor and at petitioner’s expense.
- The record on review is incomplete: no transcript, an inaudible recording, and the modification order lacked factual findings or articulated reasons; the court may have referenced a police probable cause form that did not mention his children.
- Samiuddin challenged the authority to impose such conditions under Arizona law and asserted Fourteenth Amendment due process violations; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review and vacated the conditions for remand due to inadequate findings.
Issues
| Issue | Samiuddin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona law authorizes pretrial conditions prohibiting or restricting a defendant’s unsupervised contact with minor non-victim children | Such categorical restrictions are not expressly authorized by statute or rules | Constitution, A.R.S. § 13-3967, and Ariz. R. Crim. P. 7.2/7.3 grant broad discretion to restrict travel, abode, associates, and non-monetary activities to protect persons/community | Authorized: Arizona Constitution, statutes, and Rules permit such conditions if they are reasonable and necessary to protect others |
| Whether the pretrial conditions violated Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process (parental rights) by infringing fundamental parental rights without adequate justification | The conditions impermissibly infringe fundamental parental rights and warrant strict scrutiny and/or invalidation without strong justification | Parental rights are fundamental but restrictions can be balanced against the State’s compelling interest in child safety; strict scrutiny is not required in this context | Not strict scrutiny; conditions must be the least onerous, reasonable and necessary to protect children; the Rules’ tailoring satisfies due process |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is required before imposing or modifying such pretrial conditions | Due process (Mathews) requires an evidentiary hearing before imposing restrictions on parental contact | Arizona statutes/rules do not require evidentiary hearings; opportunity to be heard (including counsel/translator and Rule 7.4(c) submissions) suffices; hearings impose administrative burdens | No general right to an evidentiary hearing; meaningful opportunity to be heard is required but not necessarily an evidentiary one |
| What procedural findings are required when imposing restrictive pretrial conditions affecting parental rights | No specific argument for form of findings beyond basic fairness | Trial courts must make individualized determinations and articulate findings that the condition is the least onerous measure reasonable and necessary to mitigate an identifiable risk | Trial courts must make individualized, case-specific findings sufficient for appellate review showing the condition is the least onerous, reasonable and necessary protective measure |
Key Cases Cited
- Gusick v. Boies, 72 Ariz. 233 (recognition of abuse-of-discretion review for pretrial release conditions)
- Mendez v. Robertson, 202 Ariz. 128 (App. 2002) (no entitlement to evidentiary hearing for subsequent review of release conditions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (procedural-due-process balancing test)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (government may subordinate liberty interest when interest is sufficiently weighty; context of pretrial detention)
- Simpson v. Miller, 241 Ariz. 341 (2017) (requires individualized determination rather than categorical denial of bail)
- Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (restrictive conditions must involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary)
- State v. Decello, 113 Ariz. 255 (applying new procedural rules to pending cases)