State v. Peterman
1 CA-CR 15-0710
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- Multi-agency ATF-led roundup targeted person with a federal arrest warrant (Joshua Gunter); officers went to an address listed as Gunter’s last known residence and set up a perimeter.
- From an adjacent yard an officer observed a marijuana plant in the backyard; officers at the front saw a bong through a window and an unlocked car with keys in ignition.
- After loud knocks and no response, officers checked the unlocked front door, entered with guns drawn, conducted a protective sweep, handcuffed occupants, and later removed handcuffs and told occupants they could leave but not return until a search.
- Officers then learned Gunter was not present; occupants produced AMMA cards. One occupant refused consent to search, so an officer left to obtain a search warrant based on pre-entry observations (plant and bong) and other information.
- A warrant was obtained ~4.5 hours later; the ensuing search seized six plants, bagged marijuana, paraphernalia, business cards, phones with texts indicating transfers for profit; Peterman was charged and convicted of conspiracy and possession for sale.
- At suppression hearing the trial court found the initial entry unlawful but excised post-entry observations from the warrant affidavit, held remaining pre-entry observations supported probable cause, found no unreasonable delay in securing the warrant, and ruled Peterman was not in custody for Miranda purposes; convictions affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of initial warrantless entry | Entry unlawful: officers lacked probable cause Gunter was at address and did not use available means to verify; no exigency | Entry occurred during a valid effort to effectuate an arrest warrant; officers observed incriminating items in plain view | Court: entry was unlawful under Arizona law (no exigent circumstances) (trial court so found) |
| Validity of subsequent search warrant (independent source/probable cause) | Warrant tainted by illegal entry; evidence obtained after entry infected the affidavit | Remove illegally obtained facts; remaining pre-entry observations (plant, bong) provide probable cause and officers would have sought warrant anyway | Held: after excising tainted information, remaining affidavit supported probable cause and officers’ decision to seek the warrant was independent; warrant valid |
| Delay in obtaining warrant (securing premises) | 4.5-hour delay was unreasonable and converted the initial illegal entry into prolonged unlawful seizure | Officers acted diligently; immediate protective sweep, sought consent, then promptly drafted and obtained warrant while coordinating multi-agency investigation | Held: no unreasonable delay shown; securing premises and 4.5-hour interval not unconstitutional given circumstances |
| Statements / Miranda and attenuation of taint | Statements were product of illegal entry and custodial interrogation without Miranda; should be suppressed | Statements were voluntary, Peterman was told she was free to leave (not in custody), handcuffs removed, sufficient attenuation and no flagrancy | Held: statements admissible — court found attenuation factors and that Peterman was not in custody for Miranda purposes; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ault, 150 Ariz. 459 (Ariz. 1986) (Arizona Constitution gives stronger protection against warrantless home entry; exigent circumstances required for warrantless home entry)
- State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260 (Ariz. 1984) (evidence obtained during a warrantless, nonexigent home entry must be suppressed as fruit of the illegal entry)
- State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46 (Ariz. 1995) (when affidavit contains information from illegal entry, excise tainted facts and test remaining information for probable cause; state must show illegal facts did not affect decision to seek warrant)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent source doctrine permits admission of evidence discovered pursuant to a lawful source untainted by prior illegality)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (statements following illegal arrest are admissible if intervening events sufficiently attenuate the taint of the illegality)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (attenuation test for confessions obtained after unlawful arrest: time, intervening circumstances, and flagrancy of official misconduct)