Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the constitutionality of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 28-1321(C), which allows law enforcement officers to make or direct nonconsensual blood draws from unconscious DUI suspects. Defendant was driving an SUV that was involved in a two-vehicle collision in Arizona. Defendant was airlifted to a Nevada hospital for treatment. Without seeking a warrant, a law enforcement officer instructed Department of Public Safety dispatch to request that Las Vegas police officers obtain a blood sample from Defendant. Defendant was unconscious when the blood sample was taken. Defendant was subsequently charged with numerous offenses, including aggravated driving under the extreme influence of intoxicating liquor with a suspended license. Defendant moved to suppress the results of his blood test, arguing that the statute authorizing his blood draw while unconscious violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding (1) section 28-1321(C) is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case; and (2) under Arizona law, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would not apply in this case. Remanded to the trial court to determine whether Nevada or Arizona law applies and, if it is Nevada law, whether it supports application of the good-faith exception. View "State v. Havatone" on Justia Law

The Arizona Constitution and related laws forbid bail for defendants accused of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen when the proof is evident or the presumption great that the defendant committed such a crime. Defendant in this case was charged with multiple sexual offenses. Defendant petitioned to be released on bail, but the trial court concluded that the proof was evident and the presumption great that Defendant committed sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, rendering him ineligible for bail. Defendant challenged the facial constitutionality of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3961(A)(3) and the corresponding provision of the Arizona Constitution, article 2, section 22(A)(1). The trial court denied relief. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the provisions were unconstitutional because an individualized determination of dangerousness is necessary to withhold bail. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, holding that the provisions at issue are unconstitutional on their face because they are not narrowly focused to protect public safety. Remanded. View "Simpson v. Hon. Phemonia Miller" on Justia Law

The two defendants in this case were juveniles when they fatally shot their victims. Defendants were each convicted of first degree murder. Defendants were sentenced to natural life imprisonment under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-703, meaning they were not eligible for release. After Miller v. Alabama was decided, each defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(g). In each case, the trial court summarily denied relief, concluding that the sentencing court had complied with Miller and that any constitutional infirmity in Arizona’s sentencing scheme had been resolved by 2014 statutory amendments. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the petitions for post-conviction relief, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Defendants were entitled to evidentiary hearings on their Rule 32.1(g) petitions because they made colorable claims for relief based on Miller. View "State v. Valencia" on Justia Law

This case concerned the warrantless search of the residence of Defendant, a probationer. As a result of the search Defendant was charged with felony possession of narcotic drugs for sale and other offenses. Defendant sought to suppress the items seized during the search. The trial court ultimately granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the probation search was not supported by a reasonable suspicion and did not have a sufficient legal basis. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a warrantless search of a probationer’s residence complies with the Fourth Amendment if it is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, and its legality does not depend on whether the search is supported by reasonable suspicion; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances, the warrantless search conducted in this case was reasonable and thus constitutional. View "State v. Adair" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Arizona Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1609, which changed the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan by changing the formula for calculating future benefit increases for retired Plan members and increased the amount that employed Plan members must contribute toward their pensions. Employed members of the Plan challenged the Bill, arguing that the unilateral changes to the benefit increases formula and to the amount they were required to contribute toward their pensions violated the Pension Clause and that the legislature could not unilaterally change the terms of their pensions to their detriment. The trial court agreed and invalidated the provisions at issue. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the employed Plan members, holding that the Bill’s change to the benefit increases formula and the contribution rate violates the Pension Clause and the Court’s holding in Yeazell v. Copins; and (2) contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the employed members are entitled to attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest, and the judgment must run against the State as well as the Plan. View "Honorable Philip Hall v. Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan" on Justia Law

For many years, the City of Phoenix has contracted in collective bargaining agreements with police officers to pay officers for certain time spent on behalf of a police union (“release time”) rather than regular police duties. Taxpayers sued the City, allowing that four release time provisions in a 2012 collective bargaining agreement violated the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The trial court issued a permanent injunction, ruling that the provisions violate the Gift Clause because they lack a public purpose and are not support by adequate consideration. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the challenged release time provisions do not violate the Gift Clause. View "Cheatham v. DiCiccio" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with necrophilia and two counts of sexual assault. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of a video taken with his cell phone that he left in the victim’s apartment where he was an overnight guest, contending that the warrantless search of his phone was unconstitutional. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion and suppressed of the video and of statements Defendant made to the police about that video, holding that the evidence resulted from an illegal search. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the warrantless search of the phone was permissible because Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in either the victim’s apartment or his cell phone. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone; (2) as an overnight guest, Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment; and (3) no exception to the warrant requirement existed, and therefore, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. View "State v. Peoples" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced to death. For reasons unrelated to this appeal, the Supreme Court remanded for a new penalty phase trial on the murder conviction. After a penalty phase retrial, a jury again determined that Defendant should be sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing Defendant to represent himself during the penalty phase on remand; (2) the trial court did not err by permitting Defendant to waive the presentation of mitigation evidence; (3) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to strike a certain aggravator was not erroneous; (4) the trial court’s response to a jury question during deliberations was not fundamental error; and (5) there was no prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Gunches" on Justia Law

Frank Tamburri seeks the Libertarian Party nomination for United States Senator in the 2016 election. Pursuant to A.R.S. 16-314, Tamburri timely filed a nomination petition which included 4,205 signatures. Robert Graham, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, filed suit challenging the validity of 2,845 signatures and sought to exclude Tamburri’s name from the Libertarian primary election ballot. On appeal, Tamburri challenges the trial court’s order excluding his name from the Libertarian primary election ballot for the office of United States Senator. Tamburri concedes that he did not collect at least 3,034 signatures from “qualified signers” under A.R.S. 16-321 and -322. As a preliminary matter, the court rejected Tamburri's procedural arguments. The court held that the signature requirements of H.B. 2608 do not severely burden the ability of candidates to exercise their First Amendment rights where Tamburri has failed to show that the increased signature requirements, either facially or as applied to him, would prevent “reasonably diligent” minor party candidates from gaining ballot access. The court concluded that the 0.25 percent signature requirement is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in ensuring that candidates who appear on the general election ballot have some significant modicum of support. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment excluding Tamburri’s name from the primary ballot. View "Graham v. Tamburri" on Justia Law

Medicare Part C, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 et seq., permits enrollees to obtain Medicare-covered healthcare services from private healthcare organizations and their third-party contractors. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., regulates health plans offered by private employers to employees. At issue is whether continued inpatient treatment by Providers was medically necessary, and therefore compensable, for several MA Plan Members and ERISA Plan Members initially hospitalized for mental health evaluations or treatment. The court held that the administrative appeals process provided under the Medicare Act preempts arbitration of Medicare-related coverage disputes between private healthcare administrators and providers, even though arbitration would otherwise be required by the parties’ contracts and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq. In this case, Providers’ coverage claims are inextricably intertwined with claims for Medicare benefits, and they therefore are subject to the Medicare Act. The Act provides mandatory administrative review procedures for these disputes, which preempt arbitration. The court concluded, however, that the court of appeals erred by deciding that whether Aurora’s ERISA-related claims are arbitrable depends on whether Aurora has standing to assert this claim. The court of appeals should decide on remand whether this claim is arbitrable without considering the standing issue or whether any valid defenses to the claim exist. Therefore, the court remanded to the court of appeals to decide whether ERISA similarly preempts arbitration of ERISA-related coverage disputes. View "United Behavioral Health v. Maricopa Integrated Health Sys." on Justia Law