State v. Stevens, 228 Ariz. 411

Stevens lived with her son and his girlfriend in Bullhead City; she confronted Son over belongings while holding a meth pipe, leading to a physical struggle.
Son informed 911 that the fight involved a meth pipe or dope pipe; police arrived and entered the home to check on Son’s welfare.
A search warrant was obtained; police found methamphetamine residue in Stevens’ bedroom, and usable methamphetamine in Son’s bedroom, along with drug paraphernalia and scales.
During trial, the State elicited testimony that Stevens protested entry without a warrant and commented on her invocation of Fourth Amendment rights.
The jury convicted Stevens of possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of dangerous drugs; probation followed, with a timely appeal filed.
The court reversed the dangerous drugs conviction and remanded for a new trial, while affirming the paraphernalia conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting Stevens’ Fourth Amendment invocation as evidence violated due process.	Stevens; Palenkas prohibits such use.	Stevens argues the invocation is not admissible as guilt evidence.	Yes; admission was fundamental error.
Whether the error prejudiced Stevens on the dangerous drugs charge.	Stevens—presence defense; evidence tied to possession by Son.	State argues prejudice was limited to the dangerous drugs charge.	Prejudice found; remand for new trial on dangerous drugs.
Whether the drug paraphernalia conviction was affected by the error.	Paraphernalia evidence more probative; not prejudiced by invocation.	Invocation could affect defense; not sufficient to taint paraphernalia verdict.	No prejudice; affirm paraphernalia conviction.

State v. Palenkas, 188 Ariz. 201 (App.1996) (prosecutor cannot use a defendant’s invocation of Fourth Amendment rights as guilt evidence)
United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir.1978) (invocation of Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used to penalize right to protest entry)
State v. Wilson, 185 Ariz. 254 (App.1996) (commenting on Fourth Amendment invocation generally improper)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1986) (improper use of post-Mithan silence as evidence of guilt; foundational due process concerns)
Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980) (impeachment rules; pre-Miranda silence can be used when witness testifies, but not to penalize invocation of rights generally)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (procedural harmless error standard for some governmental evidentiary errors)
State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116 (1994) (pre-Miranda silence impeachment rules context; not a basis for penalizing invocation of rights)
McGann v. State, 132 Ariz. 296 (1982) (fundamental error standard; due process implications)