State v. Paul
1 CA-CR 16-0262
| Ariz. Ct. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Deputy Lopez stopped Paul on I-40 after observing him follow a semi about one car length for several hundred yards and change lanes without signaling.
- Paul provided inconsistent travel explanations vs. the rental agreement (claimed living in Los Angeles and headed to Oklahoma to get his grandmother; rental showed pickup in San Francisco and return to Georgia), and appeared unusually nervous during questioning.
- Paul refused consent to search; about 8–10 minutes into the stop a canine alerted to the trunk, revealing packages of marijuana and leading to Paul’s arrest.
- Paul was charged with transportation of marijuana for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia; he moved to suppress the evidence as a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The superior court denied suppression, finding reasonable suspicion for the stop and for briefly extending the detention for a canine sniff; Paul was convicted and sentenced (longest term 14 years).
Issues
| Issue | Paul’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop Paul for a traffic violation | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion because deputy did not quantify gap time or fully describe road/traffic conditions | One-car-length following at highway speeds was unsafe under A.R.S. § 28-730 and provided articulable suspicion | Stop was lawful; deputy credible that following distance violated § 28-730, so suppression denied |
| 2) Whether deputy impermissibly extended the stop to conduct a canine sniff absent reasonable suspicion | Canine search extended detention beyond traffic purpose without independent reasonable suspicion ( Rodriguez prohibits de minimis exception) | Deputy developed reasonable suspicion from travel/rental inconsistencies, nervousness, and officer training/experience to justify brief extension for dog sniff | Brief extension was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug trafficking; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweeney v. State, 224 Ariz. 107 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (standard of review and reasonable-suspicion framework)
- Teagle v. State, 217 Ariz. 17 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (reasonable suspicion for vehicle stops and analysis of traveler behavior)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (any extension of a traffic stop requires independent reasonable suspicion)
- Baron v. United States, 94 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir.) (inconsistencies in travel explanations can support suspicion of drug trafficking)