State of Arizona v. Javier Francisco Navarro
241 Ariz. 19
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Javier Navarro was arrested for DUI on Feb 15, 2015 and was read an ‘‘admin per se’’ form that later was held invalid in Valenzuela.
- After being (incorrectly) told he was required to submit to blood or breath testing, Navarro consented to a warrantless breath test.
- The breath test showed BAC above 0.15; Navarro moved to suppress the results, which the trial court denied. He was convicted on four counts of aggravated DUI and sentenced to concurrent jail and probation terms.
- On appeal Navarro argued the warrantless breath test violated the Fourth Amendment as coerced/ involuntary consent and (in reply) suggested Arizona’s constitution might provide greater protection than the federal one.
- The court considered Birchfield (U.S. Supreme Court) and Arizona precedent holding noninvasive breath tests permissible as searches incident to arrest, and distinguished Valenzuela (which involved a warrantless blood draw).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless breath test must be suppressed as coerced/ involuntary consent under Fourth Amendment and Arizona law | Navarro: Test was product of coercion because he was told he was required to submit after being read an invalid admonition | State: Breath test is permissible as a search incident to lawful arrest under Birchfield and Arizona precedent; suppression not required | Court: Denied suppression; Birchfield and Arizona cases allow warrantless breath tests as search incident to arrest; Valenzuela (blood draw) is distinguishable |
| Whether Arizona Constitution (art II, § 8) affords greater protection requiring suppression | Navarro: Arizona constitution might provide greater privacy protection than federal constitution | State: Arizona precedent permits breath tests without warrant; intermediate court bound by supreme court decisions | Court: Declined to expand beyond Arizona Supreme Court precedent (Berg, Argetakis); found no state constitutional barrier to breath testing |
| Applicability of exclusionary rule / good-faith exception given erroneous admonition | Navarro: Consent invalid; suppression required unless good-faith exception applies | State: Exclusionary rule inapplicable because the warrantless breath test itself did not violate federal or state constitutional protections | Court: Exclusionary rule not triggered because breath test was lawful; voluntariness and good-faith issues irrelevant here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299 (Arizona 2016) (invalidated warrantless blood draw evidence absent voluntary consent or good-faith exception)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (warrantless breath tests permissible as searches incident to arrest; warrantless blood tests are not)
- State v. Berg, 76 Ariz. 96 (Arizona 1953) (noninvasive breath testing falls within search-incident-to-arrest exception)
- Argetakis v. State, 24 Ariz. 599 (Arizona 1923) (search incident to lawful arrest historically does not require a warrant)
- State v. Peoples, 378 P.3d 421 (Arizona 2016) (discussing exclusionary rule and good-faith exception)