Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County. No. S0400CR201400106. The Honorable Monica Stauffer, Judge.
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix, By David A. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson, Counsel for Appellee.
Emily Danies, Tucson, Counsel for Appellant.
Judge Howard authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vá squez and Judge Kelly concurred.
[¶1] Following a jury trial, appellant Michael Salcido was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of dangerous drugs, possession of dangerous drugs for sale, and transportation or importation of dangerous drugs for sale. On appeal, Salcido argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained at a traffic stop because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. Because the state concedes that two of Salcido's convictions violate double jeopardy, and we agree, we vacate Salcido's convictions for possession and possession for sale of dangerous drugs, but otherwise affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
[¶2] In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, " we consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the . . . ruling." State v. Gonzalez, 235 Ariz. 212, ¶ 2, 330 P.3d 969, 970 (App. 2014).
[¶3] In March 2014, Detective Danny Rice of the Gila County Sheriff's Department received an anonymous tip from a " concerned citizen" that Salcido and another person would be driving through Miami, Arizona in a particular vehicle with a large quantity of methamphetamine. Based on this information, Rice began surveillance along the route that the informant had stated Salcido would be taking. Within four hours, Rice spotted Salcido's vehicle and began to follow it. Salcido was in the number one, or fast lane, and Rice was in the number two, or slow lane, about a car length behind him. Salcido immediately moved unsafely from the number one into the number two lane without signaling, cutting off Rice, and rode on the shoulder over the fog line for ten to twelve seconds before driving back across lane two into lane one. Rice then stopped Salcido for the violations.
[¶4] Shortly thereafter, other detectives arrived on the scene, one of whom was accompanied by a drug canine. Rice asked Salcido to consent to an open air sniff of his vehicle by the drug canine, and Salcido agreed. During the sniff, the canine alerted to the presence of narcotics in the vehicle, and the officers conducted a follow-up search. They discovered several items used to ingest drugs--a plastic straw and pieces of aluminum foil with a " burnt residue" on them. Rice consequently arrested Salcido for possession of drug paraphernalia. During the search incident to that arrest, Rice found approximately three ounces of methamphetamine and $905 cash in Salcido's pockets.
[¶5] Before trial, Salcido moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing it was the fruit of an illegal traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion. The jury convicted Salcido of the ...