Greehling v. State, C-419847 and C-419848
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | CAMERON; HOLOHAN |
| Citation | 135 Ariz. 498,662 P.2d 1005 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 16139-PR,C-419847 and C-419848,D |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Contravention of Search Warrantsonald E. GREEHLING, Charlotte J. Greehling; Dun Ler Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Ace Auto Parts, Petitioners-Appellants, v. STATE of Arizona, Respondent-Appellee. |
Page 1005
v.
STATE of Arizona, Respondent-Appellee.
In Banc.
Thomas A. Thinnes, P.A. by Thomas A. Thinnes, Phoenix, Eleanor L. Miller, for petitioners-appellants.
Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., by William J. Schafer III, Jessica Gifford, and Frank Dawley, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for respondent-appellee.
CAMERON, Justice.
The petitioners' motion for return of property, filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3922, was denied by the Maricopa County Superior Court. Their appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In the Matter of the Contravention of Search Warrants v. State, --- Ariz. ----, 662 P.2d 1028, 1 CA-CIV 5806, filed 25 May 1982. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-120.24, and Rule 23, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S.
Page 1006
We granted the petition for review to determine only one issue and that is, may an adverse ruling in a proceeding brought under A.R.S. § 13-3922 be reviewed by direct civil appeal?
The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. On 9 September 1980, two search warrants were issued by the Honorable Rufus J. Coulter, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County. The first warrant issued (Maricopa County Superior Court No. C-419848) was for the business premises of Ace Auto Parts in Mesa, Arizona. The second search warrant issued (Maricopa County Superior Court No. C-419847) was for a fenced lot located near Apache Junction, Arizona.
Pursuant to the issuance of the two warrants, officers searched two automobile [135 Ariz. 499] wrecking yards over a four-day period and seized a number of automobiles, numerous automobile parts, miscellaneous personalty, and various business records. On 3 October 1980, petitioners, who claim that the seized property has a value in excess of one million dollars, filed a "Motion for Return of Property" under A.R.S. § 13-3922, controverting the grounds on which the warrants were issued. This matter was docketed as a civil action and placed on the civil calendar. A.R.S. § 13-3922 provides:
"If the grounds on which the warrant was issued are controverted, the magistrate shall proceed to take testimony relative thereto. The testimony given by each witness shall be reduced to writing and certified by the magistrate. If it appears that the property taken is not the same as that described in the warrant, or that probable cause does not exist for believing the items were subject to seizure, the magistrate shall cause the property to be restored to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini, No. 2 CA–SA 2014–0010.
...firearm rights pursuant to § 13–925 is civil in nature, notwithstanding the statute's placement in title 13. See Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 499–500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982) (motion for return of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13–3922 “is civil in nature,” notwithstanding placement......
-
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini, No. 2 CA–SA 2014–0010.
...firearm rights pursuant to § 13–925 is civil in nature, notwithstanding the statute's placement in title 13. See Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 499–500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982) (motion for return of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13–3922 “is civil in nature,” notwithstanding placement......
-
In re $15,379 In U.S. Currency, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
...belongings, and the owner who is affected may be an innocent party not involved in a criminal case. See id. at 254 ; Greehling v. State , 135 Ariz. 498, 500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982). People therefore may seek the return of their seized property under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Proces......
-
In re In re, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
...belongings, and the owner who is affected may be an innocent party not involved in a criminal case. See id. at 254; Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982). People therefore may seek the return of their seized property under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process ......
-
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini, No. 2 CA–SA 2014–0010.
...firearm rights pursuant to § 13–925 is civil in nature, notwithstanding the statute's placement in title 13. See Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 499–500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982) (motion for return of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13–3922 “is civil in nature,” notwithstanding placement......
-
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini, No. 2 CA–SA 2014–0010.
...firearm rights pursuant to § 13–925 is civil in nature, notwithstanding the statute's placement in title 13. See Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 499–500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982) (motion for return of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13–3922 “is civil in nature,” notwithstanding placement......
-
In re $15,379 In U.S. Currency, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
...belongings, and the owner who is affected may be an innocent party not involved in a criminal case. See id. at 254 ; Greehling v. State , 135 Ariz. 498, 500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982). People therefore may seek the return of their seized property under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Proces......
-
In re In re, No. 2 CA–CV 2015–0166
...belongings, and the owner who is affected may be an innocent party not involved in a criminal case. See id. at 254; Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982). People therefore may seek the return of their seized property under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process ......