State v. Evans

• Decision Date: 19 May 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1,CA-CR,1
• Citation: 172 Ariz. 314,836 P.2d 1024
• Parties: STATE of ARIZONA, Appellant, v. Isaac EVANS, Appellee. 91-663.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 1024

836 P.2d 1024

172 Ariz. 314

STATE of ARIZONA, Appellant, v. Isaac EVANS, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CR 91-663.

Court of Appeals of Arizona Division 1, Department E.

May 19, 1992.

Review Granted Oct. 6, 1992.

Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Atty. by Gerald R. Grant, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for appellant.

Dean W. Trebesch, Maricopa County Public Defender by James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellee.

OPINION

EUBANK, Judge.

The State of Arizona appeals from the trial court's order granting defendant Isaac Evans's motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 13, 1990, a Phoenix justice of the peace issued a misdemeanor warrant for Evans's arrest after he failed to appear on December 12, 1990 for several traffic violations. On December 19, 1990, however, Evans did appear before a judge pro tempore, who quashed the warrant.

Under the standard procedure for quashing a warrant, a justice court clerk calls the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office") to inform them that a warrant has been quashed. The Sheriff's Office then removes the warrant from its computer. After calling the Sheriff's Office, the justice court clerk makes a note in the appropriate file, indicating the clerk who made the telephone call and the person that the clerk spoke with at the Sheriff's Office. In this case, there was no indication in Evans's justice court file that a justice court clerk had called the Sheriff's Office to notify them of the quashed warrant. In addition, the Sheriff's Office also records all of the telephone calls it receives for quashed warrants. The Sheriff's Office also had no record of a telephone call, informing them that Evans arrest warrant had been quashed.

On January 8, 1991, the State filed a complaint against Evans, charging him with possession of marijuana, a class 6 felony. The complaint alleged that, on January 5, 1991, Evans had knowingly possessed or used less than one pound of marijuana, in violation of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") §§ 13-3405, -3401, and -3418.

On March 27, 1991, Evans filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from him on January 5, 1991. At the evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Bryan Sargent testified that, on January 5, 1991, he stopped Evans for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. When he asked Evans for his driver's license, Evans replied that he did not have a license, because his license had been suspended. After conducting a records check, Officer Sargent found that Evans's driver's license had in fact been suspended and that there was a valid misdemeanor warrant for his arrest. While arresting Evans, however, Officer Sargent had difficulty handcuffing him. Therefore, he asked Evans to relax one of his hands. When Evans relaxed his hand, he dropped a marijuana cigarette. Officer Sargent and another officer then searched the passenger compartment of the car and found a bag of marijuana under the passenger seat. The officers also found a package of cigarettes, rolling papers, and marijuana residue in Evans's passenger's purse.

In ruling on the motion to suppress the evidence, the trial court relied exclusively on State v. Greene, 162 Ariz. 383, 783 P.2d 829 (App.1989). The trial court found that our facts were indistinguishable from the facts in Greene and, therefore, granted Evans's motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court also granted the State's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The State presents one issue on appeal:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting Evans's motion to suppress the evidence?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court will not reverse the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress unless the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Prince, 160 Ariz. 268, 272, 772 P.2d 1121, 1125 (1989); State v. Coats, 165 Ariz. 154, 158-59, 797 P.2d 693, 697-98 (App.1990). On a motion to suppress evidence, this court must view the facts in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, and the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed absent clear and manifest error. State v. Gerlaugh, 134 Ariz. 164, 167, 654 P.2d 800, 803 (1982).

DISCUSSION

The State argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Evans's motion to suppress. It contends that the facts in Greene are distinguishable from the facts in this case, because, in Greene, the police department was negligent in maintaining the computer records, whereas in this case the justice court employees were negligent in failing to inform the Sheriff's Office that Evans's arrest warrant had been quashed. ¹ The State also argues that the arresting officers had no reason to know that the arrest warrant had been quashed. Further, it contends that the police officers were acting on a good faith belief that the arrest warrant was valid. Therefore, the State argues that, based on the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and section 13-3925 of the Arizona Revised Statutes ², the trial court abused its discretion in granting Evans's motion to suppress.

Evans argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting his motion to suppress. He contends that the facts of this case are indistinguishable from the facts of Greene. Thus, he argues that the trial court properly granted his motion to suppress.

I.

In Greene, the South Tucson Police Department stopped appellee's van for a traffic violation. 162 Ariz. at 383, 783 P.2d at 829. The records check indicated that appellee had an outstanding City of Tucson arrest warrant based upon appellee's failure to appear for a previous traffic violation. Id. Greene was arrested and handcuffed, and a search of his pockets revealed narcotics. Id. The officers subsequently learned that the warrant had been quashed by Tucson City Court eight months earlier. Id. Appellee later moved to suppress the narcotics seized during the search, and the trial court partially granted his motion to suppress. See id. In affirming the trial court, the Arizona Court of Appeals stated as follows:

If one were to look only at the actions of the arresting officer of the South Tucson Police Department, the conclusion would be that the ends of the exclusionary rule would not be advanced by holding the evidence inadmissible. However, under the facts of this case one must look beyond his actions and focus on the actions of the South Tucson Police Department. If police misconduct, whether it be negligent or deliberate, caused or contributed to the arrest notation being in the computer system, the police department would be responsible for not keeping its computer entries up to date. No evidence was presented to the trial court establishing that the police department was blameless in having the arrest warrant notation in its computer system. Although the state suggests that such was the case, it concedes that the record is silent in this regard. Accordingly, the ends of the exclusionary rule would be furthered in an appreciable way by holding the evidence inadmissible because such a holding would tend to deter the South Tucson Police Department from deliberately or negligently failing to keep its paperwork or computer entries up to date, exposing persons to a possible wrongful arrest.

Id. at 384, 783 P.2d at 830.

The facts in this case are distinguishable from the facts in Greene. In Greene, the court upheld the suppression of the evidence to "deter the South Tucson Police Department from deliberately or negligently failing to keep its paperwork or computer entries up to date, [thereby] exposing persons to a possible wrongful arrest." Id. In this case, however, there is no evidence that the arresting officers or the Phoenix Police Department were negligent in any way. In fact, the police officers would have been negligent had they not arrested Evans for his outstanding arrest warrant. Further, in Greene, the court upheld the suppression of the evidence, because "[n]o evidence was presented to the trial court establishing that the police department was blameless in having the arrest warrant notation in its computer system." Id. However, in this case, the State presented evidence indicating that the justice court employees, not the Phoenix Police Department were negligent in failing to inform the Sheriff's Office that Evans's arrest warrant had been quashed. For these reasons, the facts in Greene are distinguishable from the facts in this case.

II.

At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court appeared to overgeneralize the rationale behind the exclusionary rule. The trial court specifically stated as follows:

[The Greene court] make[s] it clear that what [it is] trying to do is to deter negligence; in that case, to deter the negligence of the ... South Tucson Police Department.... And in this case, perhaps the negligence of the Justice Court, or the negligence of the Sheriff's office. But it is still the negligence of the State.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct. E.g., United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 916, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3417, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (emphasis added); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 446, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2364, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974) (emphasis added). Although this case involves an arrest warrant and Leon and Tucker both involve search warrants, the Arizona Court of Appeals has concluded that Leon may also apply in an invalid arrest warrant situation. See Greene, 162 Ariz. at 384, 783 P.2d at 830. In Michigan v. Tucker, the Court stated that, when a police officer acts in complete good faith, "the deterrence rationale [of the exclusionary rule] loses much of its force." 417 U.S. at 447, 94 S.Ct. at 2365 (emphasis added). In Leon, the Court clarified the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, stating that if a police officer's actions...