State v. Ahumada
241 P.3d 908
Ariz. Ct. App.2010Background
- Ahumada was convicted after a jury trial of possessing cocaine and drug paraphernalia.
- Officer South surveilled a probable drug transaction at Desert Diamond Casino and observed Ahumada place an item in his pocket.
- South identified Ahumada, requested his name, and asked to empty his pockets; Ahumada complied partially.
- South asked for a pat-down; during the pat-down he felt an object in Ahumada's right pocket and retrieved two plastic bindles with a white rock substance.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, ruling the search within the scope of consent and admissible; Ahumada was convicted and sentenced to concurrent prison terms.
- On appeal, Ahumada challenged both the scope of consent to the pat-down and the subsequent seizure under the plain-feel doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of consent to pat-down | Ahumada contends the pocket search exceeded consent. | State argues pat-down implied pocket search, given prior pocket-emptying and consent. | Search within scope; upheld |
| Plain-feel seizure | Ahumada argues plain-feel does not apply to inside-pocket discovery. | State maintains plain-feel allowed seizure given immediate contraband appearance. | Plain-feel seizure valid; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent defined by objective reasonableness)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope defined by object of search and probable cause)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel requires immediately apparent contraband with probable cause)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (plain-feel relies on probable cause and officer expertise)
- State v. Valle, 196 Ariz. 324 (2000) (limits on scope of consent when items in pocket)
- State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 (2002) (consent to search must be express and unequivocal)