State of Arizona v. Alicia Leah Gilstrap, 332 P.3d 43

Warrant issued to search a Kingman residence for drugs and paraphernalia; warrant named two believed-present individuals.
Gilstrap, not named in the warrant, was found in the shower during execution and escorted to another room.
A purse from the bathroom was moved to an adjacent room and searched.
Purse contained Gilstrap’s driver’s license, drugs, baggies, residue, packaging, and a scale.
Gilstrap was charged with possession-related offenses; she moved to suppress the purse evidence; court split on tests; Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a premises warrant authorizes searching a visitor’s purse	Gilstrap: purse cannot be searched; not named in warrant	State supports searching purses under a chosen test	Yes; purse search authorized under possession test
Which test should govern, possession, relationship, or actual-notice	Gilstrap relies on non-possession tests	State argues for possession test as superior	Adopt possession test as best approach
Whether Reyes construction is persuasive for constructive possession	Gilstrap relies on Reyes to treat proximity as possession	Gilstrap’s proximity does not create possession	Reyes rejected; no constructive possession rule adopted

United States v. Teller, 397 F.2d 494 (7th Cir. 1968) (premises-warrant search of non-owner item upheld)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (warrant permits search of containers on premises)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1979) (cannot search a person not named in the warrant)
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (U.S. 1999) (vehicle/possession considerations for searches of items not in owner’s possession)
State v. Leiper, 761 A.2d 458 (N.H. 2000) (possession-test rationale cited for clarity and guidance)