State v. Bennett
237 Ariz. 356
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Deputies responded to a 911 hang‑up call and followed office policy requiring a welfare check at the given address.
- At the property, deputies knocked on the main house, received no answer, and inspected windows and a patio; they observed part of a marijuana plant in plain view and later saw potted marijuana in a smaller outbuilding’s yard.
- Bennett emerged from the smaller structure, was cooperative, denied calling 911, admitted the plants were hers for medicinal use (no card), and produced marijuana and paraphernalia when asked.
- The dispatcher later learned (8–10 minutes after the hang‑up) that the call was accidental and that callers used the same cell phone with differing GPS coordinates; she did not relay that information to the deputies before they searched.
- Bennett was charged with production and possession offenses, moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful warrantless search, and the trial court denied suppression under the emergency‑aid exception; Bennett was convicted after a bench trial and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Bennett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the emergency‑aid exception justified warrantless entry and seizure | Hang‑up call alone and dispatcher’s knowledge that call was accidental negates reasonable belief of emergency | Deputies reasonably believed an emergency existed based on the 911 hang‑up, no response at the door, and inability to verify the emergency had passed; dispatcher’s later information was not known to on‑scene officers | Emergency‑aid exception applied; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether collective off‑scene knowledge (dispatcher) should negate on‑scene reasonable belief | Collective knowledge should be imputed to officers to show no reasonable belief of emergency | Reasonable belief for emergency‑aid is measured by facts known to officers on scene, not collective off‑scene knowledge | On‑scene knowledge governs; dispatcher’s later information did not defeat exception |
| Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression to deter unlawful entries | Exclusion deters improper warrantless entries and should apply | Searches under emergency‑aid are reasonable; deterrence exception to exclusionary rule applies | Exclusionary rule not applied because the search was reasonable under emergency‑aid |
| Whether plain‑view evidence observed during legitimate emergency activities may be seized | Evidence was seized without warrant and should be suppressed | Plain‑view seizure during lawful emergency activity is permitted | Plain‑view doctrine allowed seizure during legitimate emergency response |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227 (establishes emergency‑aid exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Inzunza, 234 Ariz. 78 (frames two‑part test for emergency‑aid: reasonable grounds of emergency and association with place searched)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (plain‑view seizure during legitimate emergency activities permitted)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Fourth Amendment focuses on objective reasonableness of circumstances confronting officers)
- State v. Jones, 188 Ariz. 388 (emergency‑aid exception applies under Arizona Constitution as under U.S. Constitution)