State v. Cash

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

RHEANNON LEE CASH, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0096
FILED 01-21-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2021-134029-001
The Honorable Scott Sebastian Minder, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice M. Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Kristen Reller
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. CASH
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Rheannon Lee Cash appeals her conviction for one count of
possession or use of dangerous drugs. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In April 2020, Tempe police officers responded to a domestic
disturbance call at Cash’s home. When the police were called and
responded a second time, Cash and her roommate were arrested for
disorderly conduct.

¶3 The arresting officer asked Cash if she wanted to take any of
her belongings with her to jail. Among other items, Cash requested she be
allowed to take her wallet. Cash was handcuffed and seated in the back of
the squad car when she told the arresting officer, without prompting, that
she had “empty baggies” in her wallet. The officer searched Cash’s wallet
finding, in a rear zipper compartment, a baggie containing
methamphetamine.

¶4 Before trial, Cash filed a motion to suppress the
methamphetamine due to it being discovered during a warrantless search.
Finding that the underlying facts surrounding the circumstances of the
search of Cash’s wallet were undisputed, the superior court denied the
motion to suppress. The superior court found the inevitable discovery
doctrine applied because Cash was being arrested and her wallet would
have been inventoried during the booking process.

¶5 The methamphetamine was admitted at trial as an exhibit.
Cash was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs and sentenced to
eighteen months of supervised probation.

¶6 Cash timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and
13-4033(A)(1).

2
 STATE v. CASH
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶7 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, this court
limits its review to the facts considered at the suppression hearing, State v.
Blackmore, 186 Ariz. 630, 631 (1996), viewed in the light most favorable to
sustaining the superior court’s ruling, State v. Hyde, 186 Ariz. 252, 265
(1996). We defer to the superior court’s factual findings but review
questions of law de novo. See State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez, 187 Ariz. 116, 118
(1996).

¶8 For the first time, Cash argues the State failed to meet its
burden because it did not offer any evidence, only the statements of
counsel. If a claim of error is not raised in the trial court and raised for the
first time on appeal, review is for fundamental error only. State v.
Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 (2005).

¶9 Neither party requested an evidentiary hearing nor offered
evidence and Cash did not make this objection below. In its response to the
motion to suppress, the State discussed the applicable Tempe Police
Department Orders (“Department Orders”) providing the procedures that
would require Cash’s wallet to be inventoried. Cash did not dispute any of
the underlying facts nor the court’s consideration of the Department Orders
and procedures. The superior court implicitly took judicial notice of the
Department Orders when ruling that the inevitable discovery doctrine
applied because Cash was going into custody and “her possessions would
necessarily be inventoried at jail.” We may “take judicial notice of anything
of which the trial court could take notice.” In re Sabino R., 198 Ariz. 424, 425,
¶ 4 (App. 2000). Although the superior court is authorized to set a
suppression motion for evidentiary hearing, the court need not do so if the
motion does not present a factual dispute requiring resolution through an
evidentiary hearing. See State v. Riley, 196 Ariz. 40, 44, ¶ 8 (App. 1999); see
also State v. Nilsen, 134 Ariz. 433, 435–36 (App. 1982). The superior court
did not err by deciding the motion without hearing evidence from the State.

¶10 Cash also argues the superior court erred when it denied the
motion to suppress because the record was insufficient for the superior
court to conclude the inevitable discovery doctrine applied.

¶11 The federal and state constitutions protect individuals against
unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence collected in violation of
these constitutional provisions is subject to suppression. U.S. Const.
amend. IV; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 8; see also State v. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. 299,
302, ¶ 10 (2016). A warrantless search is permissible if it qualifies for an

3
 STATE v. CASH
Decision of the Court

exception to the warrant requirement. Valenzuela, 239 Ariz. at 302, ¶ 10.
The inventory search is a “well-defined exception to the warrant
requirement.” Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643 (1983). It is proper “for
police to remove and list or inventory property found on the person or in
the possession of an arrested person who is to be jailed.” State v. Snyder, 240 Ariz. 551, 558, ¶ 26 (App. 2016).

¶12 Because the superior court held no evidentiary hearing, we
look to the undisputed facts for and against the suppression motion. See
State v. Navarro, 241 Ariz. 19, 20, ¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2016). The undisputed facts
are that: Cash was arrested, the arresting officer asked Cash if she would
like to take any personal items with her to the jail, Cash requested her
wallet, Cash and the officer retrieved her wallet, while seated in the police
car Cash told the officer there were empty baggies in the zipper
compartment of her wallet, the officer opened the compartment and found
methamphetamine.

¶13 The superior court denied the motion to suppress based on
the undisputed facts and that the methamphetamine would have been
inevitably discovered when Cash’s possessions were inventoried. It is
undisputed that Cash was being taken to jail. Department Orders state that
prisoner’s possessions will be searched and inventoried. Tempe Police
Dep’t Order 19.105, Arresting, Transporting & Booking Prisoners. Based on
the undisputed facts, the superior court did not err in concluding the
evidence at issue would have been discovered pursuant to an inventory
search.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4