332 P.3d 61
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- In November 2004 Deputy Dana Anderson observed a truck parked at an intersection in an area known for illegal-immigrant and marijuana activity; he saw the driver make brief, closed-fist arm movements toward the passenger area.
- Deputies turned, followed, and initiated a traffic stop after the truck pulled out; the stop led to Evans’s arrest and convictions (jury) for possession of marijuana, paraphernalia, and aggravated DUI; sentence concurrent, longest 2.5 years.
- Evans moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing the officers lacked the reasonable, articulable suspicion required under Terry for an investigatory stop because Anderson’s observation was fleeting and ambiguous.
- At the suppression hearing Anderson demonstrated the arm movements; the trial court found his observation credible (lasting ~1–1.5 seconds) and concluded the movements provided articulable facts justifying the stop.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo the legal question but deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and inferences, and affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment | State: the stop was justified because Anderson observed conduct consistent with an assault/domestic violence, supplying particularized suspicion | Evans: the observation was singular, fleeting, and ambiguous (could be innocent gestures); state failed to rule out innocent explanations or show officer training/experience | Held: Stop was reasonable; officer’s brief observation of closed-fist arm movements toward passenger provided articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion to investigate |
| Whether officer training/experience and surrounding circumstances were required to validate suspicion | State: such evidence not always necessary; totality of circumstances controls | Evans: absent testimony on training/location/time, the observations were insufficient (citing Fornof/Foreman) | Held: Training/extra contextual factors not required in every case; here the observed conduct itself supported reasonable suspicion |
| Whether courts must require that articulable factors "eliminate a substantial portion of innocent travelers" before a stop | Evans relied on Foreman/Reid to argue such a requirement | State: that additional burden is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent; reasonable suspicion need not rule out innocuous explanations | Held: Rejected Foreman-style rule; Sokolow and other Supreme Court cases control—no requirement to eliminate a substantial portion of innocent persons |
| Whether the investigatory stop violated the Fourth Amendment | Evans: stop unconstitutional because based on hunch/ambiguous conduct | State: stop constitutional under Terry/Cortez/Arvizu based on totality of circumstances | Held: No Fourth Amendment violation; stop upheld and convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop requires reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (particularized and objective basis requirement)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (not central to opinion but commonly cited Fourth Amendment principles)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable suspicion need not rise to probable cause; commonsense inferences)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (appellate review framework for Fourth Amendment questions)
- Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (limits on using broad profiles to justify stops)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (an anonymous tip can supply reasonable suspicion under appropriate circumstances)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (ambiguous conduct can justify stop to resolve uncertainty)
- United States v. Foreman, 369 F.3d 776 (Fourth Cir. decision discussing elimination of innocent travelers standard; court here declined to follow)
- State v. Fornof, 218 Ariz. 74 (Arizona case discussing factors relevant to reasonable suspicion)