State v. Burnley
| Decision Date | 10 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Curtis BURNLEY, Appellant. 2027. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Defendant was charged in the Maricopa County Superior Court with the crime of armed robbery. He filed a motion to suppress certain physical and eyewitness identification evidence, contending that he was initially illegally detained, and that the indicated physical and eyewitness identification evidence was the result of that illegal detention and therefore inadmissible. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
In ruling on defendant's motion to suppress, the trial judge apparently agreed that the initial detention of defendant was illegal, since he granted the motion to suppress the physical evidence, a gun and money taken in the robbery. However the trial judge was of the opinion that even though the initial detention of the defendant was illegal, the exclusionary rule did not require the suppression of the subsequently obtained eyewitness identification, and he therefore denied the motion to suppress this identification evidence.
After the trial judge ruled on the motion to suppress, the matter was submitted to him for a determination of defendant's guilt or innocence based upon the motion to suppress record and police reports. Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a term in the Arizona State Prison.
On this appeal, the sole contention of error is the trial court's refusal to suppress the eyewitness identification testimony. 1
An examination of the transcript of the motion to suppress hearing reveals that at 4:20 a.m. on the morning in question, two City of Phoenix patrolmen received a call concerning an armed robbery which had just occurred approximately four blocks away, at 28th Street and East Van Buren. They immediately responded, and during the 45 seconds or so that it took to arrive at the scene they received a radio broadcast describing the robbery suspect as being a white male, approximately 20 years old, and six feet tall. Immediately upon arriving at the scene of the robbery, they were informed by another officer that the suspect was afoot when last seen, and was heading south on 28th Street. The two patrolmen then proceeded in the same direction. When they had gone two blocks, one of the officers observed a slowly moving vehicle about the blocks away on the cross street to his right. This vehicle was the only traffic on the road. The officers turned in that direction, and approached with red lights flashing. However, the vehicle did not stop, but continued at a speed of about 10 to 15 miles per hour for approximately two blocks, with the officers following with flashing red lights. At that point another olice vehicle, also responding to the robbery broadcast, approached from the opposite direction, turned on his red lights, and in order to avoid a head-on collision, the suspect vehicle was forced to the side of the road the stopped. Prior to the time the vehicle was brought to a stop, the police officers' view had been obstructed by a rear window screen reflector and therefore they could not determine the number of occupants or whether the driver of the car was white or black. After the car was finally stopped, the officers approached with guns drawn, and ordered the driver to get out of the car. He did not respond until this order had been repeated three times.
When he did get out, the officers observed that the driver (defendant) was a black male, approximately six feet tall, in his early twenties, and had on a pair of red and white checked trousers that were unbuttoned, unzipped, and were partially pulled down. The officers stated that there appeared to be a light-colored pair of pants underneath.
The defendant was directed to put his hands on top of the vehicle and he was patted down for weapons. While this was occurring, a revised description was received on the police radio, stating that the robbery suspect was black rather than white, with an ensuing description of the suspect's clothing which exactly matched that of the driver of the stopped vehicle. The driver was then handcuffed and placed under arrest. Next in time sequence, the police officer who had arrived in the other patrol car looked inside the suspect's vehicle through the open door and observed a gun lying on the front seat and some money stuffed around the edge of the seat. These items were impounded and the defendant was then taken back to the scene of the robbery where he was positively identified as the robbery suspect.
The initial sighting of defendant's vehicle occurred between three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elm Ret. Ctr. v. Callaway
...economic loss doctrine, we affirm the dismissal of the tort claims because they are barred by limitations. See State v. Burnley, 114 Ariz. 300, 302, 560 P.2d 818, 820 (App.1977) (“On appeal the ruling of the trial court will be affirmed on any grounds which were within the issues, where the......
-
Wolfinger v. Cheche
...call for judgment as entered. State v. Nadler, 129 Ariz. 19, 21-22, 628 P.2d 56, 58-59 (App. 1981); State v. Burnley, 114 Ariz. 300, 302, 560 P.2d 818, 820 (App.1977). We do so ¶ 59 As lack of probable cause is a necessary element of the WICP claim raised by Wolfinger in Case III, we are no......
-
John v. Cheche
...call for judgment as entered. State v. Nadler, 129 Ariz. 19, 21-22, 628 P.2d 56, 58-59 (App. 1981); State v. Burnley, 114 Ariz 300, 302, 560 P.2d 818, 820 (App. 1977). We do so here. ¶59 As lack of probable cause is a necessary element of the WICP claim raised by Wolfinger in Case III, we a......