State of Arizona v. Christian Adair
241 Ariz. 58
| Ariz. | 2016Background
- Christian Adair was placed on supervised probation for two felonies (solicitation to possess crack cocaine for sale) and agreed to probation conditions authorizing warrantless searches and unrestricted probation access to his residence.
- An informant (identified to police by name, DOB, and address) reported Adair was still selling crack, sometimes with his young child present; police corroborated Adair’s probation status, past undercover sale with child present, and his address.
- In March 2013 probation officers, accompanied by police, conducted a warrantless search of Adair’s home pursuant to the probation conditions and seized crack, scales, packaging, cash, a gun, and ammunition.
- Adair was charged with narcotics and weapons offenses and moved to suppress the seized items, arguing the search lacked reasonable suspicion and was a pretextual police search.
- The trial court granted suppression applying a reasonable-suspicion standard; the court of appeals rejected that standard and remanded to analyze reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and held the proper test is overall reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment (totality of circumstances), not a per se requirement of reasonable suspicion, and reversed the suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Adair) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless probationary search of a probationer’s residence requires reasonable suspicion | The search is lawful if reasonable under totality of circumstances; reasonable suspicion is not a categorical requirement | The search was unconstitutional because probation officers lacked reasonable suspicion to search the home | The Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the search, conducted under valid probation conditions, is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances; reasonable suspicion is not categorically required |
| Whether the informant’s tip and corroboration justified the search | Tip from identified informant plus police corroboration of probation status, past sale with child, and address supported a reasonable search | Tip was insufficient, uncorroborated, and possibly self-interested; did not meet reasonable-suspicion standard | Under totality, the identified informant, corroboration, similarity to prior convictions, and probation conditions rendered the search reasonable |
| Whether a search pursuant to probation conditions violates Arizona Constitution art. II, § 8 | A search pursuant to lawful probation conditions is not “without authority of law” and is constitutional if reasonable | Arizona’s privacy clause requires greater protection; search violated article II, § 8 without concrete suspicion | Article II, § 8 does not change the result: searches under valid probation conditions are lawful if reasonable under totality of circumstances |
| Whether suppression should be remanded for further factfinding | The record sufficiently supports reasonableness; no remand needed | Trial court applied wrong legal standard and factual concerns warranted suppression/remand | No remand; record (viewed favorably to trial court) still shows the search was reasonable and suppression was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (probation searches pursuant to regulation on reasonable grounds can be reasonable under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probation condition authorizing searches + reasonable suspicion sufficient in that case; probationers’ diminished privacy relevant)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (suspicionless searches of parolees upheld; Fourth Amendment’s touchstone is reasonableness, not individualized suspicion)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into home is presumptively unconstitutional absent exception)
- State v. Montgomery, 115 Ariz. 583 (probation condition authorizing warrantless searches upheld under Arizona law)