inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona

2019See Ault , 150 Ariz. at 466 , 724 P.2d at 552 (declining "to extend the inevitable discovery doctrine into defendant's home ... regardless of the position the United States Supreme Court would take on this issue"); Bolt , 142 Ariz. at 263 -65 , 689 P.2d at 522-24 (declining to follow United States Supreme Court case involving warrantless entry of home to "secure" it until search warrant obtained). ¶15 While Arizona's appellate courts have never extended article II, § 8 beyond the Fourth Amendment outside the context of the home, see Peltz , 242 Ariz. 23 , n.3, 391 P.3d 1215 , our supreme court

2019See Ault , 150 Ariz. at 466 , 724 P.2d at 552 (declining "to extend the inevitable discovery doctrine into defendant's home ... regardless of the position the United States Supreme Court would take on this issue"); Bolt , 142 Ariz. at 263 -65 , 689 P.2d at 522-24 (declining to follow United States Supreme Court case involving warrantless entry of home to "secure" it until search warrant obtained). ¶15 While Arizona's appellate courts have never extended article II, § 8 beyond the Fourth Amendment outside the context of the home, see Peltz , 242 Ariz. 23 , n.3, 391 P.3d 1215 , our supreme court

2024In State v. Lamb, 116 Ariz. 134, 138 (1977), this Court agreed with other courts that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed where, in the normal course of the police investigation and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered anyway.” Although the events demonstrating inevitable discovery there had occurred at the time of the illegal search, nothing in Lamb precluded application of the inevitable discovery exception if new events had occurred after the illegal search.

2024See id. ¶46 The cases Mitcham cites from other jurisdictions admittedly use language suggesting that the inevitable discovery exception applies only when investigative facts existing before an illegal search demonstrate inevitable discovery.

2024To prove the inevitable discovery exception, the State cannot speculate but must instead “focus[] on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification or impeachment.” Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 n.5.

2016The State could not successfully argue that Hollins spontaneously admitted ownership after repeated questions if he owned the backpack. 6 STATE v. HOLLINS Decision of the Court 207 Ariz. at 204 , ¶ 35 (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984); State v. Lamb, 116 Ariz. 134, 138 (1977)). ¶16 Valid inventory searches fall within the inevitable discovery doctrine because they are routine administrative searches where police discretion is limited by standardized criteria on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity.

2015See Pope, 686 F.3d at 1084 . ¶20 Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence that the State can show by a preponderance of the evidence “would inevitably have been discovered without reference to the police error or misconduct.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 448 (1984); see State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382, 387 (1986) (recognizing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona).

1986We recognize the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona, State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382 , 724 P.2d 1 (1986); State v. Hein, 138 Ariz. 360 , 674 P.2d 1358 (1983); State v. Lamb, 116 Ariz. 134 , 568 P.2d 1032 (1977), but will allow its use only in appropriate circumstances.

2019See Ault , 150 Ariz. at 466 , 724 P.2d at 552 (declining "to extend the inevitable discovery doctrine into defendant's home ... regardless of the position the United States Supreme Court would take on this issue"); Bolt , 142 Ariz. at 263 -65 , 689 P.2d at 522-24 (declining to follow United States Supreme Court case involving warrantless entry of home to "secure" it until search warrant obtained). ¶15 While Arizona's appellate courts have never extended article II, § 8 beyond the Fourth Amendment outside the context of the home, see Peltz , 242 Ariz. 23 , n.3, 391 P.3d 1215 , our supreme court

2019See Ault , 150 Ariz. at 466 , 724 P.2d at 552 (declining "to extend the inevitable discovery doctrine into defendant's home ... regardless of the position the United States Supreme Court would take on this issue"); Bolt , 142 Ariz. at 263 -65 , 689 P.2d at 522-24 (declining to follow United States Supreme Court case involving warrantless entry of home to "secure" it until search warrant obtained). ¶15 While Arizona's appellate courts have never extended article II, § 8 beyond the Fourth Amendment outside the context of the home, see Peltz , 242 Ariz. 23 , n.3, 391 P.3d 1215 , our supreme court

2016Siewert testified at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that, even if alcohol was not a factor in this case, because the Corvette’s driver was not at the crime scene, Siewert would have collected a DNA sample from Clary in an effort to determine if that sample matched up to evidence on “the airbag or something of that manner.” See State v. Rojers, 216 Ariz. 555, 559, ¶ 18 , 169 P.3d 651, 655 (App. 2007) (“The inevitable discovery doctrine, which is an exception to the exclusionary rule, provides that illegally obtained evidence is admissible [i]f the prosecution can establish by a prepondera

2016Siewert testified at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that, even if alcohol was not a factor in this case, because the Corvette’s driver was not at the crime scene, Siewert would have collected a DNA sample from Clary in an effort to determine if that sample matched up to evidence on “the airbag or something of that manner.” See State v. Rojers, 216 Ariz. 555, 559, ¶ 18 , 169 P.3d 651, 655 (App. 2007) (“The inevitable discovery doctrine, which is an exception to the exclusionary rule, provides that illegally obtained evidence is admissible [i]f the prosecution can establish by a prepondera

2018See State v. Rosberry, 237 Ariz. 507, 508, ¶ 7 (2015) (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason.”).

2016Cf. State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507 , 508 ¶ 7, 353 P.3d 847, 848 (2015) (“We will affirm a trial court’s decision if it is legally correct for any reason.”).

2024The inevitable discovery doctrine provides that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed when, in the normal course of police investigation and conduct, and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered inevitably or ultimately.” State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 258 (App. 1990). ¶14 Arizona law has recognized this exception where officers found evidence during an illegal pat-down where the defendant “would have been arrested on independent grounds and the evidence would inevitably have been discovered during a lawful search incident to th

2015Pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine, illegally obtained evidence is admissible if “ ‘the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the illegally seized items or information would have inevitably been seized by lawful means.’” State v. Rojers, 216 Ariz. 555, ¶ 18 , 169 P.3d 651, 655 (App.2007), quoting State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 481 , 917 P.2d 200, 210 (1996). ¶ 19 The detectives eventually obtained a warrant to search the cell phone. 5 But Ontiveros-Loya argues the application for the warrant was based on the photographs found during the initial search of

2016The individual police officer must not be allowed so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into ‘a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime.’” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 376 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987) (Blackmun, J., concurring). ¶ 27 In State v. Calabrese, we concluded the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply to an “accelerated” booking search of a defendant arrested for a misdemeanor. 157 Ariz. 189, 191 , 755 P.2d 1177, 1179 (App. 1988). 5 There, officer

2016The individual police officer must not be allowed so much latitude that inventory searches are turned into ‘a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of crime.’” Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 376 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987) (Blackmun, J., concurring). ¶ 27 In State v. Calabrese, we concluded the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply to an “accelerated” booking search of a defendant arrested for a misdemeanor. 157 Ariz. 189, 191 , 755 P.2d 1177, 1179 (App. 1988). 5 There, officer

2024The inevitable discovery doctrine provides that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed when, in the normal course of police investigation and conduct, and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered inevitably or ultimately.” State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 258 (App. 1990). ¶14 Arizona law has recognized this exception where officers found evidence during an illegal pat-down where the defendant “would have been arrested on independent grounds and the evidence would inevitably have been discovered during a lawful search incident to th

2024See Acosta, 166 Ariz. at 258 (applying the inevitable discovery doctrine where “evidence would have been discovered inevitably or ultimately”).

2016See Davis, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. at 2429 (“An officer who conducts a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent does no more than ‘ac[t] as a reasonable officer would and should act’ under the circumstances____The deterrent effect of exclusion in such a case can only be to discourage the officer from ‘do[ing] his duty.’”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2016See Davis, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. at 2429 (“An officer who conducts a search in reliance on binding appellate precedent does no more than ‘ac[t] as a reasonable officer would and should act’ under the circumstances____The deterrent effect of exclusion in such a case can only be to discourage the officer from ‘do[ing] his duty.’”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2016Such a claim amounts to the unacceptable assertion that police would have done it right had they not done it wrong.”); see also United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271 , 1280 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986) (rejecting application of the inevitable discovery exception because “to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cause and could have inevitably obtained a warrant would completely obviate the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment”).

2016Such a claim amounts to the unacceptable assertion that police would have done it right had they not done it wrong.”); see also United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271 , 1280 n.7 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting application of the inevitable discovery exception because “to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had probable cause and could have inevitably obtained a warrant would completely obviate the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment”).

2024The inevitable discovery doctrine provides that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed when, in the normal course of police investigation and conduct, and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered inevitably or ultimately.” State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 258 (App. 1990). ¶14 Arizona law has recognized this exception where officers found evidence during an illegal pat-down where the defendant “would have been arrested on independent grounds and the evidence would inevitably have been discovered during a lawful search incident to th

2024Notably, “Arizona has adopted the broad view of the inevitable discovery rule,” and so “the State is not required to demonstrate that police initiated lawful means to acquire evidence prior to its seizure.” State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191 , 204 ¶ 37 (2004).

2024This case, however, is more comparable to Brown v. McClennen, the Arizona Supreme Court’s most recent case applying the inevitable discovery doctrine, where the State illegally obtained a sample of the 5 STATE v. PALMARES Decision of the Court defendant’s blood. 239 Ariz. 521 (2016).

2024Brown affirmed the ruling that the inevitable discovery doctrine did not apply, because it was not inevitable that law enforcement would have obtained the sample “by lawful, independent means.” Id. at 525 ¶ 15.

2024See Murray, 487 U.S. at 537, 542 . ¶41 We are not persuaded by Mitcham’s arguments against application of the inevitable discovery exception.

1997Id. at 539 , 108 S.Ct. at 2534 .

2025The superior court implicitly took judicial notice of the Department Orders when ruling that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied because Cash was going into custody and “her possessions would necessarily be inventoried at jail.” We may “take judicial notice of anything of which the trial court could take notice.” In re Sabino R., 198 Ariz. 424, 425, ¶ 4 (App. 2000).

2024The court “view[s] affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search” and then determines “what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.” United States v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 494, 498 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Eng, 971 F.2d 854 , 861 (2d Cir. 1992)). ¶38 Here, the verifiable facts demonstrate inevitable discovery of Mitcham’s DNA profile.

2024See State v. Boll, 651 N.W.2d 710 , 716–17 ¶¶ 20–26 (S.D. 2002) (similarly distinguishing these exceptions). 2.

2024See United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that application of the exception requires a court “to determine whether a reasonable probability of discovery existed prior to the unlawful conduct, based on the information possessed and investigations being pursued at such time” (quoting United States v. Drosten, 819 F.2d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 1987))); Eng, 971 F.2d at 861 (“[T]he alternate means of obtaining the evidence must at least be in existence and, at least to some degree, imminent, if yet unrealized.” (alteration in original) 17 STATE V.

2024The court “view[s] affairs as they existed at the instant before the unlawful search” and then determines “what would have happened had the unlawful search never occurred.” United States v. Kennedy, 61 F.3d 494, 498 (6th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Eng, 971 F.2d 854 , 861 (2d Cir. 1992)). ¶38 Here, the verifiable facts demonstrate inevitable discovery of Mitcham’s DNA profile.

2024See United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that application of the exception requires a court “to determine whether a reasonable probability of discovery existed prior to the unlawful conduct, based on the information possessed and investigations being pursued at such time” (quoting United States v. Drosten, 819 F.2d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 1987))); Eng, 971 F.2d at 861 (“[T]he alternate means of obtaining the evidence must at least be in existence and, at least to some degree, imminent, if yet unrealized.” (alteration in original) 17 STATE V.

2024See United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that application of the exception requires a court “to determine whether a reasonable probability of discovery existed prior to the unlawful conduct, based on the information possessed and investigations being pursued at such time” (quoting United States v. Drosten, 819 F.2d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 1987))); Eng, 971 F.2d at 861 (“[T]he alternate means of obtaining the evidence must at least be in existence and, at least to some degree, imminent, if yet unrealized.” (alteration in original) 17 STATE V.

2024See id. at 822 .