permissible exception in Arizona

1996See People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 , 195 Cal.Rptr. 503, 513 , 669 P.2d 1278, 1288 (1983). 3 Id. at 191-92, 755 P.2d at 1179-80 . 4 Calabrese , however, is not controlling for two reasons.

1996See People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 , 195 Cal.Rptr. 503, 513 , 669 P.2d 1278, 1288 (1983). 3 Id. at 191-92, 755 P.2d at 1179-80 . 4 Calabrese , however, is not controlling for two reasons.

2016We do not believe that constitutes a permissible exception to the requirement for a warrant. 157 Ariz. at 191 , 755 P.2d at 1179 . ¶ 28 Given the record before us, and following the reasoning of Calabrese, we disagree that the search of Snyder’s backpack was inevitable.

2016We do not believe that constitutes a permissible exception to the requirement for a warrant. 157 Ariz. at 191 , 755 P.2d at 1179 . ¶ 28 Given the record before us, and following the reasoning of Calabrese, we disagree that the search of Snyder’s backpack was inevitable.

2022Id. at 355 ; see also State v. Urrea, 242 Ariz. 518, 522, ¶ 10 (App. 2017) ("A check of a VIN number is a permissible inquiry sufficiently related to a traffic stop."), vacated in part on other grounds, 244 Ariz. 443 (2018). ¶19 After an officer has accomplished the stop's mission, "the driver must be permitted to proceed on his way without further delay or questioning" unless (1) the encounter becomes consensual or (2) the officer has by that time developed reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity.

2022Teagle, 217 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 22 .

2017See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 118-19 , 106 S.Ct. 960 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986) (upholding VIN number cheeks in both windshield and doorjamb); United States v. Ramos, 194 F.Supp.3d 1134, 1167 (D.N.M. 2016) (concluding VIN inspection is lawful part of traffic stop). ¶ 11 Moreover, even had Deputy Zovko illegally prolonged the traffic stop when he asked Urrea to “step back to his patrol vehicle in order to discuss the reason for the stop,” the ensuing conversation appears to have been entirely consensual.

2017But, “[n]ewly-discovered material facts alleged as grounds for post- conviction relief are facts which come to light after the trial and which could not have been discovered and produced at trial through reasonable diligence.” State v. Dogan, 150 Ariz. 595, 600 (App. 1986) (emphasis added); accord State v. Bilke, 162 Ariz. 52, 52-53 (1989). ¶7 Salem’s claims that the scientific studies showing that Paxil may cause aggression in some individuals is not newly discovered evidence.

2017See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 118-19 , 106 S.Ct. 960 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986) (upholding VIN number cheeks in both windshield and doorjamb); United States v. Ramos, 194 F.Supp.3d 1134, 1167 (D.N.M. 2016) (concluding VIN inspection is lawful part of traffic stop). ¶ 11 Moreover, even had Deputy Zovko illegally prolonged the traffic stop when he asked Urrea to “step back to his patrol vehicle in order to discuss the reason for the stop,” the ensuing conversation appears to have been entirely consensual.

2017See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 118-19 , 106 S.Ct. 960 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986) (upholding VIN number cheeks in both windshield and doorjamb); United States v. Ramos, 194 F.Supp.3d 1134, 1167 (D.N.M. 2016) (concluding VIN inspection is lawful part of traffic stop). ¶ 11 Moreover, even had Deputy Zovko illegally prolonged the traffic stop when he asked Urrea to “step back to his patrol vehicle in order to discuss the reason for the stop,” the ensuing conversation appears to have been entirely consensual.