State v. Cheatham
353 P.3d 382
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cheatham was stopped at night by two officers who noticed a dark windshield and smelled burnt marijuana in the vehicle.
- A search of Cheatham’s car revealed an empty prescription bottle in the center console and an empty cigar package on the driver’s seat.
- The officer smelled unburnt marijuana from the bottle and found marijuana beneath the driver’s seat, which led to Cheatham’s arrest.
- Cheatham admitted the prescription bottle with the odor of unburnt marijuana was his after being advised of Miranda rights.
- Cheatham moved to suppress the evidence, arguing AMMA immunized him or invalidated the plain smell doctrine; the superior court denied the motion.
- Cheatham was convicted of misdemeanor possession or use of marijuana and placed on supervised probation for one year; this appeal followed seeking suppression relief and reversal of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does AMMA eliminate the plain smell doctrine? | Cheatham argues AMMA decriminalizes possession/use and immunizes compliant patients. | State contends AMMA does not decriminalize but provides immunity only in specified circumstances; plain smell remains relevant. | AMMA does not eliminate the plain smell doctrine. |
| Was the denial of the motion to suppress proper given the AMMA context? | Cheatham contends the odor alone cannot establish probable cause under AMMA. | State maintains odor still supports probable cause under the plain smell doctrine. | The court affirmed the denial; odor supported probable cause under the plain smell doctrine. |
| Did Cheatham prove AMMA immunity to negate the search? | Cheatham alleges immunity as a registered qualifying patient via AMMA. | Cheatham failed to prove AMMA registry status; burden on defendant to show immunity. | Cheatham did not establish AMMA immunity on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harrison, 111 Ariz. 508, 533 P.2d 1143 (Arizona 1975) (plain smell supports probable cause to search)
- State v. Baggett, 232 Ariz. 424, 306 P.3d 81 (Arizona Court of Appeals 2013) (plain smell doctrine applicability in automobile searches)
- State v. Manuel, 229 Ariz. 1, 270 P.3d 828 (Arizona 2011) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings; abuse of discretion; de novo issues)
- State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 94 P.3d 1119 (Arizona 2004) (de novo review of constitutional issues; suppression standards)
- Blackmore, State v. Blackmore, 186 Ariz. 630, 925 P.2d 1347 (Arizona 1996) (review of suppression record; evidence viewed in light favorable to ruling)
- Reedr-Kaliher v. Hoggatt, 237 Ariz. 119, 347 P.3d 136 (Arizona 2015) (AMMA immunity construction; burden on defendant)
- Polk v. Hancock, 237 Ariz. 125, 347 P.3d 142 (Arizona 2015) (immunity provisions under AMMA; limits of immunity)
- State v. Sisco, - Ariz. - , - P.3d - (Arizona 2015) (discussed as potential conflicting view on AMMA; not controlling here)