Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department D
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2010-110475-001 The Honorable Paul J. McMurdie, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals Section Attorneys for Appellee.
James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender Phoenix By Kathryn L. Petroff, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant.
DONN KESSLER, Presiding Judge
¶1 Lacrisha Kendrick ("Kendrick") appeals her convictions for possession of narcotics for sale, possession or use of dangerous drugs, possession of marijuana for sale, misconduct involving weapons, and possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to suppress evidence. For reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Police and probation officers drove to a house to arrest "S.J." for violating probation; it had been the last known address the probation officers had for S.J. As the officers approached the house, a man standing in the front yard ignored their greeting, hurried inside, and locked the security door behind him. The officers knocked on the door and announced they were probation and patrol officers. During the ten minute wait before someone opened the door, the officers heard "a lot of commotion" inside; people moving about, glasses clinking, and a toilet flushing several times.
¶3 Kendrick opened the door and said that she was not on probation. When asked who else was in the residence, Kendrick stated that she did not know. The officers requested that everybody inside exit the residence. Four people walked out, including Kendrick and the man originally seen running inside the house.
¶4 The officers then conducted a protective sweep of the residence to search for S.J. and anyone else inside who might pose a danger. During the sweep, the officers did not find S.J. or anyone else, but saw drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view. The officers used this information to obtain a search warrant, and during the subsequent search found and seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, and weapons.
¶5 Kendrick was indicted on eight counts of drug-related charges and weapon misconduct. Kendrick moved to suppress the evidence seized from her home, arguing that the protective sweep leading to the search of her home was illegal. At the evidentiary hearing, officers testified that they performed the protective sweep because they suspected S.J. may have been hiding inside. Their suspicion stemmed from: (1) the man's mysterious flight inside, (2) the commotion they heard while delayed outside the door, (3) Kendrick's statement that she did not know who else was inside, and (4) their belief that S.J. was the home's lessee. The court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the officers' testimony had "provided a reasonable basis for the officers to believe that [S.J.] (and perhaps others) could have remained in the residence either to avoid contact with the police or to compromise officer safety."
¶6 Kendrick waived her right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, she was convicted of possession for sale of narcotic drugs, possession or use of dangerous drugs, possession of marijuana for sale, misconduct involving weapons, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Kendrick was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 3.5 years' incarceration with 52 days' presentence incarceration credit. Kendrick filed a timely notice of appeal. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2010), and -4033(A)(3) (2010).
ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7 Kendrick argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, she contends that the officers' protective sweep violated her constitutional protections against the warrantless search of her residence and subsequent seizure of evidence ...