State v. Mortemore
1 CA-CR 17-0135
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- On Feb. 24, 2016, Phoenix officers encountered Adam Mortemore riding a bicycle in a residential alley and approached him based on suspicion of burglary.
- An officer asked if Mortemore had weapons or illegal drugs; Mortemore denied but reached toward a visible bulge in his pants.
- Officers asked to search his pants pockets; Mortemore said, “Okay, that’s fine, then go ahead.”
- Officers found two baggies containing marijuana; Mortemore was arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession.
- At a consolidated bench trial and suppression hearing, the superior court denied Mortemore’s motion to suppress, found him guilty, and placed him on 12 months unsupervised probation.
- Mortemore appealed, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and the pocket search was not consensual; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Mortemore in an alley | Alley presence alone did not justify stop; no specific evidence of burglary | Officers relied on training and experience that burglaries often begin in alleys; officers observed conduct supporting suspicion | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances; affirmed |
| Whether Mortemore consented to the pocket search | Denied consenting; if any consent, limited to left pocket; consent was coerced | Officers testified Mortemore agreed to search both pockets; he was cooperative and not coerced | Court found by preponderance that consent was given voluntarily; search lawful |
| Whether city code basis for stop required resolution (vagueness) | City code §36-61 is vague and overbroad, so could not justify detention | Issue not raised below; court did not rely on city code to justify stop | Issue waived for appeal; court affirmed on other lawful-suspicion grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adair, 241 Ariz. 58 (discusses standard of review and deference to suppression hearing findings)
- State v. Evans, 237 Ariz. 231 (totality-of-circumstances approach to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (courts must give due weight to officers’ training and experience in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (requires minimal objective justification for stops)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent to search must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299 (State bears burden to prove consent by preponderance)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse a search)