Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. No. CR2013-111090-001. The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Retired Judge.
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix, By Lisa Marie Martin, Counsel for Appellant.
Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix, By Spencer D. Heffel, Counsel for Appellee.
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
Samuel A. Thumma, Judge:
[¶1] The State of Arizona appeals from an order granting Christian Adair's motion to suppress the fruits of a probation officer's warrantless search of his residence. The State argues the warrantless search did not violate Adair's Fourth Amendment rights because it was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Because reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment for such a search, the order is vacated and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[¶2] In March 2012, the superior court placed Adair on supervised probation for two felony convictions for solicitation to possess crack cocaine for sale committed in late 2010. The Uniform Conditions of Supervised Probation (Probation Conditions) agreed to by Adair and imposed by the court required him to:
o " maintain a crime-free lifestyle, by obeying all laws, and not engaging or participating in any criminal activity; "
o " not possess or control any . . . firearms [or] ammunition; "
o " submit to search and seizure of person and property by the APD [Adult Probation Department] without a search warrant; "
o " provide the APD safe, unrestricted access to" his residence; and
o " not possess or use illegal drugs or controlled substances and  submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed by the APD."
Pursuant to these Probation Conditions, the APD conducted warrantless searches of Adair's residence without apparent incident before the search at issue here.
[¶3] In December 2012, an informant told a police officer that Adair was on probation for selling drugs to an undercover officer and " thought that [Adair] was still selling crack cocaine." The informant provided police his or her name and contact information but did not want to testify or be listed by name in any police report. Over the next few months, the informant provided police additional information, with one officer testifying " there was a conversation that the person thought that possibly that [Adair's] young child was going along on these narcotic sales." The officer confirmed Adair was on probation for selling drugs to an undercover officer and had a child with him during that transaction, and that Adair lived at the address provided by the informant.
[¶4] In March 2013, the police relayed this information to a probation officer, including that the informant said drugs were still being sold from Adair's residence, or were " possibly being sold from the residence." The probation officer confirmed that Adair's Probation Conditions included a warrantless search term, decided to conduct a warrantless search of Adair's residence and, pursuant to standard APD policy, contacted police for assistance. Three probation officers, accompanied by seven police officers, then went to Adair's residence and, when Adair answered the door, a probation officer told him they were conducting a probation search. Although the record does not reflect any objection to the search at that time, the State does not claim that Adair verbally consented to ...