398 P.3d 584
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- In June 2014 Deputy Zovko stopped Francisco Urrea for a traffic violation, asked him to exit the car for a records check, and then obtained written consent to search his vehicle; officers found a concealed package containing ~61.8 grams of cocaine in the rear cargo area.
- Urrea was indicted for possession and transportation of a narcotic drug for sale; trial court denied suppression of the evidence and admitted a law-enforcement expert with some limitations on specific references (cap, tattoo).
- During voir dire the State used six peremptory strikes, five of which targeted jurors of Hispanic background; the court sustained Batson objections to three strikes, reinstated those venirepersons, and empaneled a jury (two of the reinstated jurors served). Urrea objected and sought mistrial; court refused.
- Urrea argued on appeal: (1) the warrantless search and consent were invalid (illegal extension/detention and taint), (2) the Batson remedy was inadequate and denied his peremptory rights, and (3) improper "profile" expert testimony was admitted. Trial court rulings on suppression, Batson remedy, and expert testimony were reviewed.
- The appellate court affirmed: it upheld the consent search and its duration, held trial court did not abuse discretion in choosing to reinstate jurors (rather than order a new venire), and found the expert testimony admissible as permissible generalized drug-operations evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Urrea's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: whether search/consent and detention were unlawful | Detention was unlawfully prolonged by ordering him out of car and VIN/records checks; consent was tainted | VIN/records checks and driver removal were lawful safety/routine inquiries; consent was voluntary | Denied. Court found stop and VIN/records check lawful, removal for officer safety permitted, and consent valid; suppression denial affirmed |
| Attenuation/taint (consent following alleged illegal detention) | Consent was product of illegal detention and not sufficiently attenuated; Miranda warnings not given | No illegal/custodial detention occurred; consent was voluntary and consensual encounter | Denied. No unlawful detention shown; attenuation/fundamental-error arguments fail |
| Batson remedy: proper cure for discriminatory peremptory strikes | Court should have granted mistrial/restarted voir dire so improperly struck jurors would be seated and defendant could re-exercise peremptories | Trial court may fashion remedy; reinstating jurors to the venire and forfeiting invalid strikes is an acceptable remedy | Affirmed. Arizona trial courts may either reseat jurors or grant a mistrial; here reseating and proceeding was within discretion and not an abuse |
| Expert/profile testimony: whether law-enforcement testimony improperly presented drug-courier profile evidence | Expert offered impermissible profile evidence and opined about role/intent (for sale vs. personal use) | Testimony was generalized modus operandi and permissible; officer may opine on sale vs. personal use with foundation | Denied. Court found testimony admissible as generalized drug-operation evidence and any error was not fundamental |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes based on race violate Equal Protection; trial court has remedy options)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda custodial-warning principles)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officer inquiries unrelated to traffic stop lawful only if they do not measurably extend the stop)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation/taint analysis for statements or evidence following illegal conduct)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) (the excluded juror has no right to be seated, only the right not to be excluded on account of race)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) (defendant’s peremptory rights are not impaired when defendant uses peremptory to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause)