State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328

Foncette was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia following police actions at a Tempe hotel.
Police used a drug-detection dog in the hallway outside Foncette’s hotel room after a traffic stop linked to marijuana scent from a car.
Hotel staff authorized police access to the hallway; the dog alerted to Foncette’s room.
Officers knocked, Foncette opened the door; they smelled marijuana and detained the occupants, then obtained a warrant for a nighttime room search.
Officers entered briefly to remove a non-responsive companion, then conducted a nighttime search that uncovered over 20 pounds of marijuana and packaging materials.
Foncette moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment and nighttime-search statutory grounds; the superior court denied, and the appellate court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dog sniff in hallway violated Fourth Amendment	Foncette argues hallway sniff invaded privacy by extending from protected space.	Foncette contends Jardines barred dog sniff in proximity to a private area.	No Fourth Amendment violation; hallway not curtilage, and dog sniff conducted in public area with hotel authorization.
Whether warrantless hallway-entry/exigent circumstances were valid	Foncette asserts warrantless entry was unlawful without a prior exigency.	Officers entered under valid exigency created by odor and prior dog alert; hotel access legitimized entry.	Exigent circumstances exist; entry reasonable to preserve the status quo pending a warrant.
Whether nighttime warrant search violated A.R.S. § 13-3917 good-cause standard	Search allegedly served overnight without good cause.	Circumstances and timing provided good cause; statutory violation not constitutional defect.	No suppression; statutory violation remedies not available absent constitutional violation; good cause supported nighttime search.

Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (U.S. 2013) (drug-dog investigation of curtilage requires license or invitation)
Arizona v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (dog sniff reveals only contraband, not protected privacy)
Place v. United States, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (dog sniff reveals only presence of narcotics)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (privacy expectation analysis; reasonable expectation of privacy)
King v. State, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. 2011) (exigent-circumstances in warrantless entries; objective reasonableness)
State v. Jackson, 117 Ariz. 120 (Ariz. 1977) (good-cause standard for nighttime searches)
State v. Rypkema, 144 Ariz. 585 (Ariz. 1985) (nighttime search based on drug-trafficking nighttime activity insufficient without specifics)
State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 (Ariz. 2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings; deference to factual findings)
State v. Jacot, 235 Ariz. 224 (Ariz. 2014) (de novo review of legal conclusions in suppression)