State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores, 230 Ariz. 551

Boteo-Flores was convicted after a jury trial of facilitation of theft of a means of transportation and on remand to address attenuation, the court must decide whether his post-arrest statements were sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint.
The Arizona Supreme Court held the stop became a de facto arrest due to lack of diligence and continued handcuffing without ongoing safety threat, prompting remand to determine attenuation of the confession.
The State argued attenuation was not waived and could be raised on appeal; Boteo-Flores argued the issue was not properly preserved below.
At suppression, an officer detained Boteo-Flores for 30-40 minutes in handcuffs, then the auto theft detective arrived, re-Mirandized, and questioned him, leading to incriminating statements.
The trial court denied the suppression motion; on appeal the court considered whether the taint could be purged under the Reffitt framework.
The appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision, finding the statements improperly admitted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attenuation of taint and purging illegal arrest	State argues taint may be purged; Miranda alone insufficient but may attach attenuation.	Boteo-Flores contends taint cannot be purged; no intervening purpose or circumstances.	Taint not purged; statements improperly admitted.
Waiver/remand to develop record on attenuation	State contends issue not waived and may be reviewed to uphold ruling.	Boteo-Flores argues remand unnecessary; record adequate for review.	Issue considered; remand not required; merits addressed.

State v. Reffitt, 145 Ariz. 452 (Arizona 1985) (attentuation requires more than Miranda; factors apply to purge taint)
State v. Kinney, 241 P.3d 914 (Arizona App. 2010) (we may address issues to uphold trial ruling)
State v. Brita, 158 Ariz. 121 (Arizona 1988) (unlitigated issues should not be raised for first time on appeal)
State v. Spears, 184 Ariz. 277 (Arizona 1996) (taint attenuation and admissibility context)
State v. Monge, 842 P.2d 1292 (Arizona 1992) (mixed question of law and fact; determination on appeal)
State v. Hummons, 253 P.3d 275 (Arizona App. 2011) (factors for attenuation: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose of misconduct)
State v. Crowley, 41 P.3d 618 (Arizona App. 2002) (burden-shifting and record development context)
State v. Goracke, 106 P.3d 1035 (Arizona App. 2005) (remand considerations when no conflicts in record)