State v. Baggett, 306 P.3d 81

Early morning stop (2:39 a.m.) in a high-crime Phoenix area for riding a bicycle at night without a visible front lamp; officer observed a duct-taped flashlight on the bike that flickered.
Officers detained Baggett, performed a weapons pat-down, removed his backpack, and placed it on the patrol car about 15–20 feet away.
Officer Tan smelled marijuana from the backpack, questioned Baggett (who gave evasive answers about its source), and searched the backpack, finding a digital scale, baggies of marijuana, and later a tested positive methamphetamine sample.
Baggett moved to suppress the backpack evidence; the trial court denied the motion, holding the stop lawful, the frisk justified, and the smell provided probable cause to search.
Jury convicted Baggett of possession of dangerous drugs (methamphetamine), possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia; Baggett appealed arguing suppression should have been granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of initial stop under A.R.S. § 28-817(A)	§ 28-817(A) light requirement applies only on roadways; sidewalk riding not covered	§ 28-817(A) applies to any bicycle operated at night regardless of roadway/sidewalk	Stop lawful: statute’s plain language covers bicycles at night anywhere; no roadway limitation implied
Authority to conduct weapons frisk and remove backpack	No reasonable suspicion to frisk or remove backpack	Officers had reasonable fear for safety: late hour, high-crime area, Baggett nervous/evasive	Frisk and separation of backpack upheld as reasonable for officer safety
Validity of searching backpack after detecting marijuana odor (plain smell)	Officers were not lawfully positioned to smell; incriminating character not immediately apparent; no lawful access	Officers lawfully placed backpack on hood and smelled marijuana; smell gave probable cause to search	Search upheld: plain smell doctrine satisfied — lawful position, immediate incriminating character, lawful access and probable cause
Sufficiency of probable cause given medical-marijuana law (AMMA)	Smell alone insufficient because AMMA may legalize possession	State: AMMA is a defense, not an obstacle to investigation; argument waived below	Not addressed on appeal (argument waived for failure to raise at suppression hearing)

State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43 (App. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Mendoza-Ruiz, 225 Ariz. 473 (App. 2010) (deference to credibility findings; legal questions reviewed de novo)
State v. Ramsey, 223 Ariz. 480 (App. 2010) (reasonable fear standard for weapons frisks)
State v. Morrow, 128 Ariz. 309 (1981) (adoption of plain-smell doctrine analogous to plain view)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain view/sense doctrine elements)
State v. Decker, 119 Ariz. 195 (1978) (odor of marijuana can establish probable cause)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest)
Mazen v. Seidel, 189 Ariz. 195 (1997) (lawful access allows seizure of contraband in plain view)