State v. Green, 431 P.3d 599

Early morning stop at Fort Lowell Park: officer found a pipe on the truck console and another pipe during a search; Green (driver) was handcuffed, Mirandized, and initially cited for trespass/possession of paraphernalia.
Officer intended to cite-and-release but returned Green to patrol car to run an immigration check under SB 1070; check found no immigration issues.
After the immigration check delay, a bag fell from Green's lap; field test was positive, leading to custodial arrest and discovery of heroin and morphine on Green.
Green moved to suppress the drug evidence arguing the detention was unlawfully prolonged once officer decided to cite-and-release; trial court denied the motion and convicted him of two counts of possession and one count paraphernalia.
At sentencing Green argued he was entitled to mandatory probation under A.R.S. § 13-901.01 because his 2006 solicitation-to-sell conviction should not count as a prior "personal possession" strike; the trial court denied relief and imposed prison terms.
The court of appeals affirmed convictions, reversed sentencing: held detention was lawful (no unlawful prolongation), but solicitation-to-sell is not a prior "personal possession" conviction under § 13-901.01, so mandatory probation is required on remand.

Issue	Green's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether detention was unlawfully prolonged after officer decided to cite-and-release	Officer had decided to release Green; Rodriguez requires detention not exceed mission, so additional immigration check unlawfully prolonged detention and tainted discovery	Green had been validly arrested for paraphernalia; release was discretionary, so officer could lawfully continue investigation (including immigration check); detention supported by probable cause	Detention lawful: because Green was under a valid custodial arrest, he was not entitled to immediate release and the delay did not render the seizure unreasonable
Whether Green's 2006 solicitation-to-sell conviction counts as a prior "personal possession" strike under A.R.S. § 13-901.01(H)(1)	Solicitation should not count; solicitation is not possession for personal use, so it cannot be a disqualifying prior	State argued past precedent and policy could support treating related inchoate/drug-for-sale offenses as disqualifying priors	Solicitation-to-sell is not a "personal possession" conviction; statute excludes possession for sale and inchoate sale offenses, so § 13-901.01 mandates probation; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with mandatory probation requirement

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (detention may not be prolonged beyond mission without reasonable suspicion)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective officer intent is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment probable-cause analysis)
State v. Taylor, 167 Ariz. 439 (App. 1990) (search must be justified at inception; limits searches during citation situations)
State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247 (2001) (statutory interpretation where literal reading yields absurd results; discussed in context of possession/paraphernalia)
State v. Ossana, 199 Ariz. 459 (App. 2000) (attempt/ inchoate possession not a prior "personal possession" conviction under § 13-901.01)