State v. Backus

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTT BACKUS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0192
FILED 06-18-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. V1300CR202280018
The Honorable Michael R. Bluff, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Diane Leigh Hunt
Counsel for Appellee

Michael J. Dew, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. BACKUS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in
which Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Scott Backus appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to
suppress in his drug possession case. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In January 2022, a Yavapai County Sheriff’s deputy surveilled
a particular Cottonwood gas station known for drug activity. He noticed a
woman whom he knew to be a local drug user in a vehicle with Backus. The
officer spoke with the woman briefly, asking for consent to search her and
her purse, which she denied. The officer ended the encounter soon after.

¶3 During this interaction, another officer observed the woman,
whom he knew to be involved with drugs. The officer observed Backus and
his companion repeatedly enter and exit the vehicle, changing seat
positions several times. At one point, an unidentified man walked up to the
vehicle, conversing with its occupants briefly before leaving. Finding this
behavior suspicious, the observing officer radioed dispatch to ascertain
whether either of the pair had any warrants. Dispatch informed the officer
that neither Backus nor the woman had any arrest warrants, but also stated
that neither individual had a valid driver’s license.

¶4 Shortly thereafter, the officer observed the vehicle leave the
gas station parking lot, with the woman driving. He followed in his patrol
vehicle as they took a circuitous route to some apartment buildings, where
the officer switched on his lights and initiated a stop. Backus immediately
exited the vehicle; the officer instructed him to get back in the passenger
seat. He argued, but eventually complied. The officer informed the vehicle’s
driver that he had stopped her because she did not have a valid driver’s
license. After the woman stated that she did have a valid license, the officer
again radioed dispatch and inquired as to the woman’s date of birth and
driver’s license status; dispatch then realized it had made a mistake, and
informed the officer that the woman’s driver’s license was, in fact, valid.

2
 STATE v. BACKUS
Decision of the Court

¶5 Meanwhile, a witness approached a second officer who had
just arrived on-scene and informed him that Backus had dropped
something near the front of the vehicle. Upon searching, officers found a
bag of blue pills lying on the ground where Backus had earlier been
standing. Backus was arrested and charged with possession of narcotic
drugs and drug paraphernalia. After testing, the pills were determined to
be fentanyl.

¶6 Before trial, Backus moved to suppress the pills based in part
on the law enforcement’s erroneous belief that the vehicle’s driver did not
have a valid driver’s license. Backus argued that because the officer
initiated the traffic stop based solely on this false information, the detention
was an illegal seizure, tainting all evidence discovered as a result of the
stop. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion, finding
that the mistake constituted a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
Backus was found guilty of drug possession but not guilty of possession of
drug paraphernalia. The court suspended the imposition of sentence and
placed Backus on a four-year period of supervised probation. Backus timely
appealed and this court has jurisdiction. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24; A.R.S.
§ 13–4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶7 The only issue in this appeal is whether the good-faith
exception to the exclusionary rule applied when officers detained Backus,
mistakenly believing his companion to not possess a valid driver’s license.
As a passenger, Backus has standing to contest the legality of the stop. See
State v. Gomez, 198 Ariz. 61, 62 ¶ 6 (App. 2000) (finding that passengers have
standing to challenge legality of a traffic stop because the stop results in
seizure of both driver and passengers). This court “review[s] the denial of
a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion, considering the facts
in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling.” State v. Valenzuela, 239
Ariz. 299, 302 ¶ 9 (2016). “We review de novo the applicability of the good
-faith exception.” State v. Weakland, 246 Ariz. 67, 69 ¶ 5 (2019).

¶8 “The exclusionary rule ‘is a judicially created remedy
designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its
deterrent effect.’” State v. Fisher, 141 Ariz. 227, 240 (1984) (quoting United
States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974)). Because the rule is intended to
deter unconstitutional search and seizure by police, it would be inapposite
to apply the rule in cases where police reasonably believed their conduct to
be lawful. See Weakland, 246 Ariz. at 69 ¶ 6. This is known as the good-faith
exception, which Arizona has codified in statute. A.R.S. § 13-3925(C) (“The

3
 STATE v. BACKUS
Decision of the Court

trial court shall not suppress evidence that is otherwise admissible in a
criminal proceeding if the court determines that the evidence was seized by
a peace officer as a result of a good faith mistake or technical violation.”).

¶9 Here, the officer relied on the dispatcher’s information, which
happened to be mistaken. Backus contends that because the police made
the mistake themselves, the stop was unconstitutional and the evidence
from it should be suppressed. However, he relies on outdated and extra
-jurisdictional caselaw to support his contention. In Herring v. United States,
the United States Supreme Court clarified that not all police errors justify
the exclusionary rule’s application. 555 U.S. 135, 139–40 (2009). Where an
officer’s reliance on information is reasonable—for example, reliance on a
recordkeeping system that is not known to be riddled with mistakes or
otherwise haphazardly maintained—the exclusionary rule serves no
deterrent purpose and thus need not apply. Id. at 146–48. Here, no evidence
shows that the officer would have had reason to doubt the dispatcher’s
information. Suppressing the pills would not deter bad police conduct; the
good-faith exception thus squarely applies, and Backus’s challenge fails.

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm.

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

4