State v. Zuzzio

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

RONALD GREGORY ZUZZIO, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0162
FILED 04-03-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. CR-2021-01458
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Phillip A. Tomas
Counsel for Appellee

Ramos Law Firm, Scottsdale
By Paul A. Ramos
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. ZUZZIO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Following his convictions for two drug-related offenses and a
misconduct involving weapons charge, Ronald Gregory Zuzzio appeals the
superior court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his
car after a traffic stop. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Our review of the denial of Zuzzio’s motion to suppress is
limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and we view
the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s ruling.
State v. Wilson, 237 Ariz. 296, 298, ¶ 7 (2015).

¶3 On December 13, 2021, around 11:19 p.m., an Arizona
Department of Public Safety Trooper was stationed on Highway 66 in
Kingman. While observing westbound traffic, the Trooper noticed a lone
car traveling away from him and decided to follow it. The car exited the
highway down a side road, made three “rapid” turns onto various streets,
and then parked on the wrong side of a residential street. The Trooper
testified that parking in this manner violated A.R.S. § 28-874.

¶4 Without activating his lights or siren, the Trooper parked
behind Zuzzio, walked up to the driver’s side window, and asked if Zuzzio
was lost. Zuzzio said he was there visiting a friend, but when the Trooper
asked who he was visiting, Zuzzio looked to his passenger (“Passenger”)
to answer the Trooper.

¶5 The Trooper then asked for Zuzzio and Passenger’s
identification. While Zuzzio searched for his license, the Trooper conducted
a record check of the car and discovered it was a rental car. Zuzzio provided
the Trooper a rental contract that showed the car was overdue, but claimed
the agreement was old and that he had another day to return it. The Trooper
allowed Zuzzio to call the rental car company (“Enterprise”) to confirm the
rental had been extended.

2
 STATE v. ZUZZIO
Decision of the Court

¶6 Zuzzio and Passenger gave the Trooper their identification
and he conducted a record check on their names. The check revealed that
Zuzzio had three active, nonextradition out-of-state warrants for his arrest
and Passenger had two active warrants within Mohave County for her
arrest.

¶7 The Trooper informed Passenger of her warrants, ordered her
out of the car, and told her she was being detained. Passenger asked the
Trooper to get her purse from the car. The Trooper told Zuzzio he was
grabbing Passenger’s purse and Zuzzio said “okay, go ahead.” During this
time, Zuzzio was still on the phone attempting to contact Enterprise to
verify the rental car’s return date.

¶8 While grabbing Passenger’s purse, the Trooper observed a
“cut pen or tooter” on the floorboard, a device “used for the smoking or
inhalation of fentanyl, heroin or other narcotic pills.” The Trooper found
the tooter approximately one minute before Zuzzio confirmed the car’s
return date with Enterprise.

¶9 The Trooper arrested Zuzzio, searched the car, and found
methamphetamine, fentanyl pills, and two firearms. Approximately 17
minutes passed between the initial contact and Zuzzio’s arrest.

¶10 Zuzzio moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the
search. The superior court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
A jury convicted Zuzzio of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale
(methamphetamine), transportation of narcotic drugs for sale, and
misconduct involving weapons. Zuzzio timely appealed and we have
jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶11 Zuzzio argues the superior court erred by denying his motion
to suppress because the Trooper’s observations were “wholly inadequate”
to create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. And, even if the Trooper
had reasonable suspicion to detain him, Zuzzio argues the Trooper violated
his Fourth Amendment rights by impermissibly prolonging the detention.

¶12 We review the superior court’s denial of a motion to suppress
for an abuse of discretion, Wilson, 237 Ariz. at 298, ¶ 7, but review de novo
whether reasonable suspicion exists to support an investigatory traffic stop,
State v. Majalca, 251 Ariz. 325, 328, ¶ 11 (App. 2021).

3
 STATE v. ZUZZIO
Decision of the Court

¶13 An officer who has observed a traffic violation has reasonable
suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. State v. Kjolsrud, 239 Ariz. 319, 322, ¶ 9
(App. 2016). An investigatory traffic stop must be temporary and last no
longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17, 23, ¶ 21 (App. 2007). Ordinary inquiries incident to traffic stops
include checking the driver’s license and inspecting the car’s registration
and proof of insurance. Kjolsrud, 239 Ariz. at 323, ¶ 11. “Once an officer
conducting a routine traffic stop has confirmed that the driver has
produced a valid license and proof of entitlement to operate the vehicle, the
driver must be permitted to proceed on his way without further delay or
questioning” unless the officer develops a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity during the stop. Teagle, 217 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 22.

¶14 The parties dispute whether the initial contact between the
Trooper and Zuzzio was consensual. But the Trooper testified, and Zuzzio
does not challenge, that the Trooper believed Zuzzio had committed a
parking violation. Because this parking violation provided the Trooper
reasonable suspicion to detain Zuzzio temporarily, Kjolsrud, 239 Ariz. at
322, ¶ 9, we need not analyze whether the initial encounter was consensual.
We thus treat the encounter as a legal traffic stop.

¶15 And the Trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. He asked Zuzzio to produce a driver’s
license and the rental car agreement—both ordinary inquiries incident to
traffic stops. Id. at 323, ¶ 11. Zuzzio’s rental contract showed that the car
was seven days overdue, but he told the Trooper the rental had been
extended. The Trooper allowed Zuzzio to contact Enterprise to confirm the
rental car was not overdue or stolen. See Teagle, 217 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 22 (a
routine traffic stop includes confirmation of the driver’s entitlement to
operate the car). The Trooper had no control over how long it took for
Zuzzio to contact Enterprise and confirm his lawful possession of the car,
and there is no evidence that the Trooper could have obtained that
information any sooner than Zuzzio did.

¶16 Before Zuzzio verified the car’s return date, the Trooper saw
the tooter on the car’s floorboard, which gave him probable cause to believe
the car contained drugs or drug paraphernalia. See State v. Sisco, 239 Ariz.
532, 535, ¶ 8 (2016) (probable cause exists when there is a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime is present). Because the Trooper
gained probable cause of criminal activity within the scope of a legal traffic
stop, the subsequent search of the car and seizure of evidence was lawful.
State v. Weinstein, 190 Ariz. 306, 310 (App. 1997).

4
 STATE v. ZUZZIO
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶17 We affirm the superior court’s denial of Zuzzio’s motion to
suppress.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5