State v. Petersen

Citation124 Ariz. 336,604 P.2d 267
Decision Date04 December 1979
Docket NumberNo. 2,CA-CR,2
PartiesThe STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Richard Kenneth PETERSEN and Gary Dean Rogers, Appellees. 1812.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
Stephen D. Neely, Pima County Atty., by Michael D. Alfred, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for appellant

Law Offices of Robert C. Rowland, P. C., by Jeffrey A. Marks, Tucson, for appellee Petersen.

Richard S. Oseran, Pima County Public Defender, by Allen G. Minker, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellee Rogers.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting defendant Rogers's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements. It contends the court erred in its findings that Pima County Sheriff's officers lacked probable cause to arrest the defendants and that the state had not met its burden of showing that Rogers voluntarily consented to a search of his car. We affirm.

The power tools that are the subject of the motion to suppress were stolen from a former employer of defendant Petersen. The employer named Petersen, who had recently been fired, as a suspect in the theft. Rogers was implicated by two anonymous informants, who told a sergeant in the Pima County Sheriff's office that Rogers was a thief and had been seen with power tools near a certain address. A detective who went to the address saw the defendants working on a car that matched the informants' description of Rogers's car. After the defendants left, they were stopped and detained by a deputy until other officers arrived. Defendants were then advised of their Miranda 1 rights and Rogers was asked to consent to a search of his car. One of the officers testified that the defendants were questioned about the stolen power tools before Rogers signed the consent form. Rogers testified, however, that the officers told him they were searching for something the previous owner had stashed in the car, which Rogers had purchased about a week earlier. He said he would not have consented had he known the true purpose of the search. No consent form was produced by the state at the hearing, although Rogers had signed one.

The defendants were not formally arrested until the tools were discovered. The trial court, however, apparently found that the arrest occurred earlier, when the defendants were placed in patrol cars and were no longer free to leave. Although a suspect may not be formally placed under arrest until later, "an arrest is complete when the suspect's liberty of movement is interrupted and restricted by the officers." State v. Edwards, 111 Ariz. 357, 359-60, 529 P.2d 1174, 1176-77 (1974). If the officers did not have probable cause at the time the defendants were placed in the patrol cars, the arrest was unlawful, and cannot be validated by the later discovery of the tools. See Edwards, supra.

The anonymous tip and the suspicions of Petersen's former employer gave the officers reason to suspect the defendants, but did not justify their arrest. The standard of probable cause is greater than mere suspicion. Edwards, supra. There was no showing that the anonymous informants were reliable and had obtained their information in a reliable way, as is required under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). The independent observations of the detective, which corroborated the information that Rogers had a green car and could be found at a certain address, did not link the defendants to any criminal activity and did not make the tip reliable; they merely corroborated information that anyone living in Rogers's neighborhood would know. State v. White, 122 Ariz. 42, 592 P.2d 1308 (App.1979). Since the officers did not have probable cause to arrest, any evidence obtained as a fruit of the unlawful arrest was justifiably suppressed. Edwards, supra.

Although the arrest was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Parkhurst v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1981
    ... ... Some courts have regarded the voluntariness of the consent to search as a distinguishing factor sufficient to "purge the taint." This approach in effect ignores the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine and concentrates entirely on the voluntariness issue. See, e. g., State v. Petersen, 124 Ariz. 336, 604 P.2d 267 (1979) (even after unlawful arrest, search of car is okay if consent given, but places voluntariness under heavy scrutiny); United States v. Bazinet, 462 F.2d 982 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 453, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 ... Assuming arguendo that we ... ...
  • State v. Alder
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 1985
    ...We do not have here a situation where consent was obtained by means of deceit, such as was true in the case of State v. Petersen, 124 Ariz. 336, 604 P.2d 267 (App.1979) (where the police obtained consent from the defendant to search his car by telling him that they were searching for someth......
  • State v. Galipo
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 2014
    ...the voluntariness of consent is on the state. Id.¶10 Consent is not voluntary if obtained through deception. State v. Petersen, 124 Ariz. 336, 338, 604 P.2d 267, 269 (App. 1979). But Galipo began to consent before the officer even made the statement Galipo challenges. Additionally, the offi......
  • State v. Mitchell, 1 CA-CR 01-0447.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 2003
    ... ... Ault, 150 Ariz. 459, 464, 724 P.2d 545, 550 (1986) (quoting State v. Winegar, 147 Ariz. 440, 447-48, 711 P.2d 579, 586-87 (1985)); State v. Petersen, 124 Ariz. 336, 338, 604 P.2d 267, 269 (App.1979) (quoting State v. Edwards, 111 Ariz. 357, 359-60, 529 P.2d 1174, 1176-77 (1974)). A literal application of this oft-repeated statement would support the conclusion that the police had completed the arrest at the instant the officers grabbed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT