352 P.3d 941
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Ontiveros-Loya was convicted of possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor after police found a cell phone and gun-related photographs during a motel-room search.
- Detectives obtained consent to search the motel room; the cell phone was located in the room and photographs of a gun were recovered on it.
- Ontiveros-Loya was arrested and charged with multiple offenses; suppression motions were filed including a motion to suppress cell-phone data.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, and a jury convicted on the prohibited-possessor count.
- On appeal, Ontiveros-Loya argued the cell-phone search was unlawful and the motel-room consent did not extend to the phone; he also challenged related evidentiary issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cell phone search incident to arrest was lawful | Ontiveros-Loya contends the search was invalid under Chimel and Riley because the phone was not within reach and could not threaten officers or preserve evidence. | State contends search incident to arrest was permissible to locate identity and potential evidence, and consent to search extended to the phone. | Search invalid under Chimel and Riley; violative, remanded for consent determination |
| Whether inevitable discovery saved the cell-phone search | Ontiveros-Loya argues that even if initial search was unlawful, the photographs would have been discovered lawfully anyway. | State contends inevitable discovery applied due to lawful warrant subsequent to initial search. | Inevitable discovery not proven; court abused by denying suppression based on it |
| Whether Ontiveros-Loya consent to search the motel room extended to the cell phone | Consent to search the room does not automatically include the contents of the phone found in the room. | Consent to search the room could authorize searching items within the room, including the phone, depending on scope. | Record insufficient to determine consent scope; remand to resolve consent to search the cell phone |
| Whether admission of cell-phone photographs and related instructions were proper | Photographs of gun on the phone were improperly admitted if obtained unlawfully and without proper limiting instructions. | Argues admissibility under consent and search-authority theories; limiting instructions requested but not fully addressed. | Remanded scope to address consent and preservation of issues; no final ruling on instructions or photographs |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits search incident to arrest to area within arrestee's immediate control)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant generally required to search a cell phone seized incident to arrest)
- Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (2004) (hotel/motel protection under Arizona constitution; scope of searches)
- Olm, 223 Ariz. 429 (2010) (Arizona standard on warrant exceptions to searches)
- Guillen, 223 Ariz. 314 (2010) (consent as an exception to the warrant requirement)
- Swanson, 172 Ariz. 579 (1992) (scope of consent; objective standard for consent to search)
- Flores, 195 Ariz. 199 (1999) (scope of consent; predicates to search)
- Lucero, 143 Ariz. 108 (1984) (burden to show consent and scope of search)