Articles Posted in Drugs

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his conviction and sentence for transportation of a dangerous drug for sale. The defendant was originally subject to a traffic stop while he was in the passenger seat of a vehicle. The car’s driver had a conversation with the police officer, and after this conversation, the officer found methamphetamine in the vehicle’s tires. On appeal, the defendant argued that the court improperly allowed the jury to consider the driver’s conversation with the police officer during trial. The court considered this argument but ultimately denied the appeal, determining that even if the court did make an error, the defendant had not proven it negatively affected the outcome of his case.

The Charges

The State charged the defendant with transportation of a dangerous drug for sale, a Class 2 felony. The charges were based on an incident during which officers stopped a car after they noticed the driver commit a traffic violation. One of the officers began speaking with the driver, who answered questions nervously and claimed she did not know the passenger (the defendant)’s name. After this conversation, the officer conducted a search of the car and found methamphetamine in the vehicle’s tires.

Statements Between the Driver and the Officer

A jury found the defendant guilty, and on appeal, he argued that the court made a mistake when it allowed the State to present statements by the driver to the officer. The statements were irrelevant, said the defendant, and were only prejudicial to his case. The State, on the other hand, argued that the statements were relevant because of their effect on the officer before he searched the vehicle.

Continue reading

In a January 2024 opinion issued by the Arizona Supreme Court, the question of whether the State can appeal a trial court’s decision to expunge a defendant’s record was at issue. The court had to decide whether the State was legally able to challenge a lower court’s order granting a defendant’s request for expungement and restoration of his civil rights, which was issued in response to a marijuana-related offense. On appeal, the court concluded that the State had a reasonable right to challenge the lower court’s order, given that the drug offense ultimately affected the “substantial rights of the State.”

Background

This case was based on an incident in which the State charged a defendant with possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of narcotic drugs. The State charged the defendant in 2011, and the defendant pleaded guilty to several of his charges several months later. As part of this plea, the defendant admitted to having provided the means to another to sell or transport marijuana.

Nine years after the guilty plea, Arizona adopted Proposition 207, which is a law allowing trial courts to erase (or “expunge”) defendants’ records when the records pertain to a certain category of marijuana offenses. Because the defendant’s offense was eligible for expungement, he filed a petition with the trial court. The trial court granted the petition, and the State appealed.

Continue reading

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked that the court decide that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for drug possession. The court disagreed with the defendant, affirming his guilty verdict. The court’s opinion highlights the fact that, even if you are not driving a car that is registered in your name, you could still be liable for the car’s contents.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers conducted a routine traffic stop one evening by pulling over the defendant’s wife. The defendant’s wife was driving the car registered in the defendant’s name, and upon conducting the traffic stop, the officers found drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine in the vehicle. The defendant was indicted on possession of dangerous drugs and possession or use of drug paraphernalia.

The defendant pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. After a jury found him guilty, the defendant promptly appealed the verdict.

The Decision

In his appeal, the defendant argued that it was his wife driving the car, not him. There was not, therefore, sufficient evidence for a jury to find that he possessed the paraphernalia and the drugs, and his conviction should be reversed.

Continue reading

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the State challenged the lower court’s decision to suppress evidence of drugs that an officer found in a defendant’s vehicle. An officer originally pulled the defendant over for a traffic violation, and after a prolonged stop, the officer found drugs in the defendant’s vehicle. When the defendant filed a motion to suppress, the lower court granted it. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this ruling, siding with the defendant by affirming that the incriminating evidence was rightfully suppressed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer noticed while on patrol that the defendant was following another car too closely as he drove by. The officer stopped the defendant and immediately began asking him questions about where he was headed. As he continued to ask questions, the officer asked the defendant to leave his vehicle and sit in the passenger seat of the patrol car.

The officer explained to the defendant that his job was to find individuals that were trafficking drugs. He also assured the defendant that he would only give him a warning for the traffic violation. The officer then asked the defendant if he had drugs in the car, and the defendant admitted he had marijuana in his vehicle.

Continue reading

In a recent case before an Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant asked for a reconsideration of his convictions and sentences for two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. Originally, the State charged the defendant when it used an informant to catch him in the act of selling methamphetamine. The defendant pled not guilty, his case went to trial, and he received a guilty verdict. Reviewing the case on appeal, the higher court examined the lower court’s record and ended up affirming the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators worked with an informant to catch the defendant selling methamphetamine. The informant contacted the defendant two separate times to buy the substance, and both times, the informant returned from the sale with a white crystal substance. After both of the purchases, detectives analyzed the material, which tested positive for methamphetamine.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. His case went to trial, and during trial, the State introduced video recordings of the transactions as well as the bags with the substance inside.

Continue reading

In a recent court of appeals case in Arizona, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence related to possession of dangerous drugs for sale. When the defendant was originally charged, he filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence on the grounds that the detective’s search warrant that led to his arrest was legally insufficient. The court denied the request, the trial went forward, and a jury found the defendant guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing the court wrongly denied his motion to suppress.

The higher court agreed that the defendant’s argument should have been given more consideration, and it sent the case back down to the lower court. The trial court then held a hearing and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress for a second time. Again, the defendant appealed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

The main officer involved in this case received an anonymous tip that the defendant was selling drugs from his home, and the officer began to investigate. After some initial investigations, the officer requested a search warrant from the court, which would allow him to go into the defendant’s home without the defendant’s permission. The court issued the search warrant, and the officer went to the defendant’s house and found evidence of drug operations happening inside. The defendant was quickly arrested for possession of dangerous drugs for sale.

Continue reading

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals last month, the defendant asked that the court reconsider an unfavorable verdict from the trial court. Originally, the defendant was convicted of selling or transporting dangerous drugs. On appeal, she argued that the lower court unfairly denied her motion to suppress; because the officers that found drugs in her car did not actually have the right to conduct a traffic stop, she argued, the evidence should not have come in at trial. After reviewing the record of the case, the court of appeals affirmed the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators had been looking into the defendant and her acquaintance for months, suspecting they were engaged in the sale of dangerous drugs. While the investigators were conducting surveillance, they watched one day as the two individuals loaded their SUV and got on the highway. Because the investigators had been looking into these two people for a while, they did not want to make it obvious that they were following the car or that they suspected there were drugs in the car.

The investigators asked local police officers to conduct something called a “whisper stop”, which is when a law enforcement agency can ask another agency to find an entirely different reason to stop and search a vehicle so that the driver and passengers are not clued into the fact that they are under surveillance. Here, the local police officers received the call that the investigating agency needed a whisper stop, so they followed the car and suspected it was speeding by 5 miles per hour.

Continue reading