Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arrested for operating a motorized watercraft while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OUI) and transported to an aid station used by the sheriff’s office. Defendant read an “OUI Admonishment” form, which provided that “Arizona law requires you to submit” to breath, blood, or other bodily substance tests chosen by law enforcement. Defendant agreed to submit to a blood draw and was subsequently charged with two counts of OUI and one count of extreme OUI. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the test results, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because he did not voluntarily consent to the test. The justice court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. A jury subsequently found Defendant guilty. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not consent to giving blood samples in this case. Remanded. View "Brown v. Hon. Crane McClennen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of conspiracy to commit sexual exploitation of a minor. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and juror misconduct. The trial court summarily dismissed Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) neither Appellant’s trial counsel nor his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (2) even if Appellant properly raised his juror misconduct claim, he failed to show prejudice. View "State v. Kolmann" on Justia Law

While executing a warrant authorizing the search of a home, police found Defendant, who was not named in the warrant, in the home. Police proceeded to search Defendant’s purse. Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse, arguing that the search of her purse was unlawful because she was not named in the warrant. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that police were permitted to search the purse. The Supreme Court affirmed after adopting the possession test, under which officers may search personal items that are not in their owners’ possession when police find them in executing a premises search warrant, holding that because Defendant did not physically possess her purse when the officers found it, they were authorized to search it for the items listed in the warrant. View "State v. Gilstrap" on Justia Law

After a police officers had a consensual encounter with Defendant, they asked Defendant if he had any firearms. Defendant replied that he had a gun. The officers then frisked Defendant, removed the gun, and arrested Defendant as a prohibited possessor of a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unconstitutional search. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that once the officers became aware that Defendant had a gun, they were allowed to remove the gun and conduct a pat down for safety purposes. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that, during an initially consensual encounter with an individual, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot before frisking the individual. View "State v. Serna" on Justia Law

Appellant was placed on probation. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal. The Office of the Public Defender assigned the case to an attorney. Appellant informed the trial court, as well as her attorney, that she wished to represent herself on appeal, but her requests were ignored. Appellant’s counsel then filed a motion with the court of appeals seeking leave for Appellant to represent herself. The court of appeals denied the motion, concluding that although there was no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal, self-representation was permitted if the request was timely, and Appellant’s request was untimely. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, holding (1) the Arizona Constitution provides a defendant with a right to self-representation on appeal, and (2) the request for self-representation on appeal must be made no later than thirty days after the filing of the notice of appeal. Remanded. View "Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen" on Justia Law

In 2006, the City of Phoenix started installing light rail tracks along Jefferson Street, which abutted Appellant’s property. As part of the installation, the City erected a permanent concrete barrier between the tracks and Appellant’s property, thus blocking two driveways providing vehicular access from Jefferson Street to Appellant’s property. The property, however, still had access via Madison Street. The City subsequently filed an eminent domain action to determine the compensation it owed to Appellant for a temporary construction easement Appellant granted the City. Appellant counterclaimed, seeking damages for his permanent loss of access to Jefferson Street. The superior court granted summary judgment to the City on that claim, concluding that a property owner is not entitled to compensation for loss of access if he retains “free and convenient access” to the property. The court of appeals vacated the superior court’s ruling, concluding that the government may not eliminate a property owner’s established access to an abutting roadway without providing just compensation to the property owner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under these circumstances, an owner may claim compensable damage to private property within the meaning of Ariz. Const. art. II, 17, even if other streets provide access to the property. View "City of Phoenix v. Garretson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder for stabbing his pregnant girlfriend, killing her and the unborn baby. Appellant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and death sentences, holding that the trial court did not (1) err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress his post-arrest confession; (2) err in striking a juror for cause; (3) err in screening and limiting questions used in a written questionnaire sent to prospective jurors; (4) err in precluding or limiting the testimony of three defense witnesses; (5) commit fundamental error by allowing evidence of statements Appellant made four years before the murders; (6) abuse its discretion in finding that the State’s mental health expert qualified as an expert in intellectual disability and in therefore allowing the expert to testify on the issue of Appellant’s intellectual ability; and (7) violate Appellant’s right to counsel by not declaring a mistrial based on the alleged ineffectiveness of Appellant’s trial attorneys. In addition, the jury did not abuse its discretion in finding aggravating circumstances and in determining that death was the appropriate sentence. View "State v. Naranjo" on Justia Law

In 1985, the Arizona Legislature established the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan (“Plan”), which provides pension benefits for elected officials, including judges. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 38-818 establishes a formula for calculating pension benefit increased for retired members of the Plan. In 2011, the Legislature enacted S.B. 1609, which modified the formula set forth in section 38-818. Two retired judges, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of retired Plan members and beneficiaries, sued the Plan and its board members, alleging that S.B. 1609 violated Ariz. Const. art. 29, 1(C). The trial court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, concluding that S.B. 1609 violated Article 29, 1(C)’s prohibition against the diminishment or impairment of public retirement system benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the statute diminished and impaired the Plan’s retired members’ benefits, it violated the Pension Clause of Article 29, 1(C). View "Fields v. Elected Officials' Ret. Plan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder and six other felonies for offenses committed during a home invasion. The trial court imposed death sentences for the murders and prison sentences totaling seventy-five years for the non-capital counts. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences but ordered that her sentences for armed robbery and aggravated robbery run concurrently, holding, among other things, that (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error in granting Defendant’s motion for a change of venue based on extensive media coverage of the crimes, deciding its rulings regarding jury selection, and instructing the jury; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for robbery and aggravated robbery because these crimes were based on a single act by Defendant. View "State v. Forde" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of five counts of first degree murder, among other charges, and sentenced to death for each murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by consolidating the murder and solicitation of first degree murder charges; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence certain victims’ recorded statements; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial; (5) the trial court did not err in admitting a forensic firearms expert’s testimony; (6) substantial evidence supported the solicitation convictions; (7) the trial court did not err in its jury instructions; (8) and substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of aggravating circumstances and the imposition of the death sentences. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law