State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido
238 Ariz. 461
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In March 2014 Detective Danny Rice, acting on an anonymous tip that Salcido would be transporting a large quantity of methamphetamine, began surveillance and followed Salcido’s vehicle.
- Rice observed Salcido change from the fast lane to the slow lane without signaling, cut off Rice’s car, ride on the shoulder for 10–12 seconds, then return to lane one; Rice stopped the vehicle for violating A.R.S. § 28-754.
- Other officers arrived with a drug canine; Salcido consented to an open-air sniff, the dog alerted, and officers searched the vehicle.
- Officers found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle; Salcido was arrested and, during a search incident to arrest, Rice found ~3 ounces of methamphetamine and cash on Salcido.
- Salcido moved to suppress the drug evidence as fruit of an illegal traffic stop; the trial court denied the motion, a jury convicted him of multiple drug offenses (including transportation for sale), and he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms.
- On appeal the court reviewed (1) whether Rice had reasonable suspicion to stop Salcido and (2) double jeopardy implications of multiple drug convictions arising from the same conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop — whether officer had reasonable suspicion under § 28-754 | State: Rice observed an unsignaled lane change that could affect other traffic, providing reasonable suspicion | Salcido: his lane change did not constitute a traffic violation; officer’s vehicle cannot be “other traffic” because officer must be present to stop him | Held: Police vehicle can be “other traffic”; Rice’s observations supported reasonable suspicion and the stop was lawful |
| Whether a police vehicle counts as “other traffic” under § 28-754 | N/A (issue raised by court in response to Salcido’s argument) | Salcido: statute shouldn’t be read to include police vehicles because the officer’s presence is intrinsic to a stop | Held: "Other traffic" includes law enforcement vehicles; plain meaning, other statutes, and persuasive authority support inclusion |
| Whether detention was illegally prolonged / amounted to arrest | N/A | Salcido: detention/arrest was unlawfully prolonged (raised on appeal) | Held: Issue forfeited for failure to raise below; no fundamental error shown, so waived |
| Double jeopardy — multiple convictions for same conduct | State (conceded on appeal): possession and possession for sale duplicate transportation for sale | Salcido: (did not raise initially) multiple punishments violate double jeopardy | Held: Possession and possession-for-sale convictions are lesser-included offenses of transportation-for-sale; vacated those two convictions, affirmed the rest |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gonzalez, 235 Ariz. 212 (review standard for suppression rulings) (explains evidence viewed in light favoring suppression denial)
- State v. Starr, 222 Ariz. 65 (lane-change signaling and when failure to signal may affect other traffic)
- Bilke v. State, 206 Ariz. 462 (statutory interpretation—apply plain meaning unless absurd)
- State v. Cheramie, 218 Ariz. 447 (possession is lesser-included of transportation for sale)
- State v. Price, 218 Ariz. 311 (double jeopardy: lesser-included and greater offense cannot both be punished)
- State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa, 192 Ariz. 360 (possession-for-sale is lesser-included of transportation)