State v. Evans, 237 Ariz. 231

Background

Deputies observed Dale Evans making three rapid, closed-fisted arm movements toward a passenger while stopped at an intersection; deputy testified he did not see contact but suspected an assault and directed a traffic stop.
The stop led to Evans’s arrest for marijuana possession, drug paraphernalia, and aggravated DUI; Evans moved to suppress evidence as the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
Trial court denied suppression, finding the arm movements were articulable facts justifying investigation; the court of appeals affirmed, rejecting a requirement that officers show how observed factors “eliminate” innocent conduct.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether reasonable suspicion requires showing the observed circumstances eliminate a substantial portion of innocent travelers.
The Court considered the totality-of-the-circumstances reasonable-suspicion standard and whether an additional “serve to eliminate” requirement is constitutionally required.

Issues

Issue	Evans' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether reasonable suspicion requires showing the facts eliminate a substantial portion of innocent travelers	Arresting officers must show the observed factors together "serve to eliminate" a substantial portion of innocent motorists	No extra elimination showing required; particularized, objective suspicion under the totality of circumstances suffices	Held: No additional constitutional requirement; officer need not quantify or expressly rule out innocent explanations
Whether officers must expressly rule out innocent explanations at suppression hearings	Evans: officers must affirmatively consider and testify how innocent explanations were excluded	State: officers need not rule out innocent explanations; courts assess objective reasonableness	Held: Officers need not expressly rule out innocent explanations; courts evaluate totality and reasonable inferences
Whether particularized suspicion necessarily limits stops to a small class of people	Evans: ambiguity suggests risk of sweeping in many innocents unless elimination shown	State: particularized suspicion by definition does not cover large categories; suffices to limit scope	Held: Particularized, objective suspicion inherently narrows who may be stopped; no separate numeric showing required
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying suppression here	Evans: stop lacked reasonable suspicion because movements could be innocent	State: deputy reasonably inferred possible assault/domestic violence from rapid closed-fist movements	Held: No abuse of discretion; observation justified investigatory stop to investigate possible assault

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (totality-of-circumstances requirement for particularized suspicion)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigatory stop standard)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (reasonable suspicion requires minimal objective justification)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances, commonsense inferences)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (review standard and commonsense approach to Fourth Amendment questions)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (officer need not rule out innocent explanations)
Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (particularized suspicion limits scope of stops)
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (officer need not eliminate innocent explanations for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Foreman, 369 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. formulation of "serve to eliminate" language discussed and rejected as a constitutional requirement)
United States v. Neff, 681 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. decision cited by Evans as adopting an "eliminate" test)