State v. Zamora, 1 CA-CR 16-0135

Police officer observed Zamora riding a bicycle through a stop sign and against traffic, attempted a stop, and saw Zamora drop items later recovered and believed to be heroin.
Officer arrested Zamora, advised Miranda rights; Zamora said he did not understand English and wanted Spanish; Officer A then stopped questioning.
During a search incident to arrest, Officer A found a bag in Zamora’s pocket containing a substance believed to be methamphetamine; Officer A held it at arm’s length to inspect it behind Zamora’s back.
Zamora turned his body to look at the substance and spontaneously said, “that is mine.” Laboratory testing confirmed heroin and methamphetamine.
Zamora moved to suppress the admission as obtained during custodial interrogation before Spanish Miranda warnings were given; the trial court found Zamora was in custody but not interrogated and denied suppression.
Jury convicted Zamora of possession counts; trial court sentenced him and this appeal followed challenging the denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements at the scene were obtained by custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings	State: Officer’s conduct was not interrogation; statement was unsolicited and spontaneous	Zamora: Officer’s actions (holding evidence, presence of Spanish speaker) were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and police should have known his susceptibility	Court: No interrogation occurred under Innis; statement was spontaneous and officer’s actions were normally attendant to arrest

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (established Miranda warning requirement for custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defined interrogation and the “functional equivalent” test)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (addressed admissibility of post-warning statements after initial unwarned questioning)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (held subsequent warned confession can be admissible after an initial unwarned admission under certain circumstances)
State v. Maciel, 240 Ariz. 46 (Arizona case discussing suppression of stationhouse statements after Miranda violations)