Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Doty

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department B

July 18, 2013


Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. CR2011-00304 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge.

Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Craig W. Soland, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee.

Jill L. Evans, Mohave County Appellate Defender Kingman Attorney for Appellant.



¶1 Matthew Ward Doty (Defendant) appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized by police during a protective sweep. For the following reasons, we affirm.


¶2 On March 15, 2011, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Deputy DeVries and Deputy Williams of the Mohave County Sheriff's Office went to a single-wide trailer in Golden Valley, Arizona (Residence). The deputies were looking for J.H., who they learned was inside the Residence.[1] Deputy Giralde arrived shortly thereafter to assist the other deputies.

¶3 For approximately thirty minutes, the deputies called out to J.H. and requested that he exit the Residence. During that time, Deputy DeVries spoke to the owner of the Residence (Owner) by telephone. Owner told Deputy DeVries that Defendant lived at the Residence and should be the only one there. The deputies ran a record check and learned that Defendant had an outstanding warrant from a traffic case.

¶4 At approximately 9:00 p.m., J.H. voluntarily left the Residence and was arrested. Deputies then requested that Defendant also exit the Residence and informed him that they had a warrant for his arrest. After Defendant stated that he was not going to come outside. Deputies advised Defendant that if he did not come out, would kick in the front door and place him under arrest.

¶5 Defendant continued to refuse the deputies' commands for him to exit the Residence. Deputy Williams and Deputy DeVries ultimately kicked in the front door to the Residence. Deputy Williams testified that it was dark inside the Residence, and he had to turn on a tactical light that was mounted on his duty weapon in order to see. The deputies encountered Defendant in a hallway and advised him that he was under arrest. Deputy Williams ordered Defendant to lie on the ground. Defendant refused to comply with this request and told the deputies to get out of the Residence. Defendant proceeded to strike Deputy Williams multiple times on his upper chest, head, face, and neck.

¶6 Because Deputy Williams was unable to subdue Defendant, Deputy DeVries deployed his Taser. However, one of the Taser's probes disconnected from Defendant's skin, which rendered the initial Taser application ineffective. Defendant resumed struggling with Deputy Williams, and Deputy DeVries subsequently "drive-stunned" Defendant twice by applying the Taser directly to Defendant's back. The deputies were then able to handcuff Defendant.

¶7 While Deputy DeVries and Deputy Giralde took Defendant outside and placed him in Deputy DeVries' vehicle, Deputy Williams remained inside "to continue a safety sweep of the Residence." Deputy Giralde returned, and he and Deputy Williams conducted the protective sweep. At that time, Deputy DeVries also returned inside to take pictures of an indentation in the drywall in the hallway, which he believed had occurred during the altercation between Defendant and Deputy Williams. During the sweep, Deputy Giralde observed two pipes that contained white burnt residue and appeared to be for methamphetamine use on a desk in a bedroom near the hallway where Defendant had been arrested.

¶8 The State charged Defendant with resisting arrest, aggravated assault, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of the drug paraphernalia found during the protective sweep. Defendant alleged that the sweep was illegal because the deputies did not have specific facts that someone who posed a safety threat was inside the Residence after Defendant was arrested. The motion to suppress focused ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.