State v. McCullarState v. McCullar
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Struckmeyer
This is аn appeal by the State from an order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County granting a motion to suppress evidence concerning 36 kilos of marijuana. We hold the motion to supрress was erroneously granted.
On February 20, 1972, five police officers from the Metropolitan Enforсement Group, Denver, Colorado, were staying overnight at the Rodeway Inn in Phoenix, Arizona. While on their way to dinner, they picked up a hitchhiker, a woman later identified as Sheila Brown. In talking with her, the conversation turned to marijuana. She told the Colorado officers that if they would give her their telephone number she would have an individual contact them from whom they could make a purchase. Lаter that evening, a phone, call was received and the initial contact was made which ultimately led to the seizure of the marijuana involved in this appeal.
The following day, after some preliminary maneuvers, two of the Colorado police officers met the appelleеs, McCullar and Vince, at a Tastee-Freez parking lot near 75th Avenue and Indian School Road. Thеre, McCullar and Vince were given $4,670.00 in marked bills in payment for marijuana. Immediately thereafter, the two Colorado police officers identified themselves and placed McCullar and Vince under arrest. One of the officers took the keys out of the appellees’ vehicle and oрened the trunk. Inside were 36 kilo bricks of marijuana. Shortly thereafter, in response to a telephone call by the Colorado officers, the Phoenix police arrived and the appellеes’ vehicle was impounded and the 36 kilos of marijuana seized.
On these facts, the seizure of the mаrijuana was constitutionally lawful. In Arizona, by
Arizona’s Uniform Narcotic Drug Act,
“ ‘Sale’ includes barter, exchange or gift, or offer therefor, * *
It is argued by appellees that therе is no evidence that they made an offer of sale to the Colorado officers, but we think aрpellees unrealistically interpret the facts. Both parties knew that the Denver agents werе attempting to purchase marijuana and that in exchange for the $4,670.00 appellees werе expected to deliver 36 kilos of marijuana. In view of the statement made by one of the appellees at the Tastee-Freez that they had the marijuana and the absence of any сompelling evidence that their offer to sell was false, it is reasonable to conclude thаt appellees were offering to make a sale within the literal meaning of
Not only is the sale of marijuana a felony,
“After surveying the law from the time of the adоption of the Fourth Amendment onward, the Court held that automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the сar contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize.” (Emphasis supplied) 399 U.S. 42, 48, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1979, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, 426.
Later in its opinion, the Court concluded:
“For constitutional purpоses, we see no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding a car before presenting the probable cause issue to a magistrate and on the other hand carrying out an immediate search without a warrant. Given probable cause to search, either course is rеasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” 399 U.S. 42, 52, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, 428.
We do not read Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) as forbidding a warrant-less search of a motor vehicle if therе is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. And see State v. Childs, 110 Ariz. 389, 519 P.2d 854 (filed March 8, 1974).
The order of the Superior Court granting the motion to suppress is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to proceed in accordance with the views expressed herein.
CAMERON, V. C. J., and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.