From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mejia

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Feb 25, 2016
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0225 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0225

02-25-2016

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAIME MEJIA, Appellant.

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Jana Zinman Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix By Cynthia Dawn Beck Counsel for Appellant


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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2014-112330-001
The Honorable Jerry Bernstein, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Jana Zinman
Counsel for Appellee Maricopa County Legal Defender's Office, Phoenix
By Cynthia Dawn Beck
Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Randall M. Howe joined. THUMMA, Judge:

¶1 Jaime Mejia appeals his convictions for resisting arrest and possession or use of a narcotic drug, arguing the superior court erred by denying his motion to suppress. Because Mejia has shown no error, his convictions are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

"This court considers only the evidence received at the suppression hearing and does so in a light most favorable to upholding the superior court's ruling on the motion to suppress." State v. Nissley, 238 Ariz. 446, 448 n.2 (App. 2015).

¶2 One day in March 2014, at about 10:00 a.m., Phoenix Police Detective Schug saw Mejia and another man walking through a motel parking lot in a high-crime area. Mejia and his friend looked at Detective Schug, quickly looked away and continued walking. Thinking they looked suspicious, Detective Schug relayed a brief description of the two over his police radio and went behind a car about 100 yards away from the two men.

¶3 Sergeant Dillon heard the radio description and approached Mejia and his friend, asking "Hey, guys, do you mind if I talk with you?" Mejia turned at a 45-degree angle, faced Sergeant Dillon, took "an aggressive stance by widening his feet, slightly lowering his base" and while continuing to move, said, 'What the f***, cop? Why are you f***ing with me? Leave me the f*** alone.'" Mejia simultaneously put his right hand under his shirt near the pocket of his jeans, creating a safety concern. Sergeant Dillon ordered Mejia to show his hands. When Mejia failed to immediately comply, Sergeant Dillon drew his handgun and pointed it at the ground, repeating his demand that Mejia show his hands. Mejia eventually complied by pulling his right hand out of his pocket. When doing so, Mejia pulled out various items, including a small bag containing marijuana.

¶4 Other people were nearby, and Detective Schug, who was 50 to 100 yards away, could hear Mejia yelling, but could not hear what he was saying.

¶5 After being charged with various criminal offenses, Mejia moved to suppress, claiming police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory detention and, therefore, all evidence seized during or as a result of the illegal detention (including the marijuana) should be suppressed. The court held an evidentiary hearing, where the officers testified to the facts summarized above. Mejia testified and offered a substantially different version of events, including that the bag of marijuana was on the ground before he had any contact with the officers. He also testified to having two small knives but that he never touched them. After hearing testimony and argument, the superior court denied Mejia's motion to suppress, finding that "reasonable suspicion was developed, not only with his belligerent stance and attitude towards the officers but by his movements to put his hands in a way that the officers interpreted as reaching for a weapon." The court further noted that Mejia "pulled [a baggie containing a green, leafy substance] out of his back pocket and then pitched it."

¶6 Mejia went to trial on three counts of aggravated assault against a police officer, each a Class 5 felony; resisting arrest, a Class 6 felony; possession or use of narcotic drugs, a Class 4 felony; and possession or use of marijuana, a Class 6 felony. At the State's request after it rested, the court dismissed one of the aggravated assault charges. Mejia then elected to testify on his own behalf. After the close of the evidence, the jury found Mejia guilty of resisting arrest and possession or use of narcotic drugs, but not guilty on the other charges. The superior court found Mejia had eight prior felony convictions and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 5.75 and 12 years, with 370 days of presentence incarceration credit. From Mejia's timely appeal, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article 6, Section 9, and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031 and -4033 (2016).

Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Mejia's sole argument on appeal is that the superior court erred in denying his motion to suppress. In addressing that issue, this court "defer[s] to the [superior] court's factual findings, including findings on credibility and the reasonableness of inferences drawn by the officer," but reviews de novo the legal conclusion of "whether the totality of the circumstances warranted an investigative detention." State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17, 22 ¶ 19 (App. 2007).

¶8 The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "A police officer may approach an individual and ask questions without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment" and "the encounter will not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature." State v. Serna, 235 Ariz. 270, 272 ¶ 8 (2014) (citations omitted). Once an encounter loses its consensual nature, an investigatory detention is proper if officers "have reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." State v. Wyman, 197 Ariz. 10, 13 ¶ 6 (App. 2000) (citations omitted).

¶9 When Sergeant Dillon first approached Mejia and his friend, the encounter was consensual. Sergeant Dillon made no orders; instead he asked, "Hey, guys, do you mind if I talk with you?" In response, Mejia immediately began yelling profanity, widened his feet and crouched, creating an "aggressive stance," and reached into his back pocket with his right hand, apparently to get something that could not be viewed by Sergeant Dillon. In response, Sergeant Dillon repeatedly ordered him to show his hands, a command Mejia eventually obeyed. At the time of those commands, the encounter became a detention subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See Serna, 235 Ariz. at 272-73 ¶¶ 10, 12 ("A reasonable person would not have felt free to disregard [an order for the suspect to put his hands on his head] from a law enforcement officer.").

¶10 The question, then, is whether Sergeant Dillon could legally detain Mejia when the encounter became a detention. Sergeant Dillon testified at the suppression hearing that, at the time he ordered Mejia to show his hands, Mejia was engaged in disorderly conduct. In this context, disorderly conduct occurs when, "with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a . . . person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person: 1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior." A.R.S. § 13-2904(A)(1). "Seriously disruptive behavior" is "of the same general nature as fighting or violence or conduct liable to provoke that response in others and thus to threaten the continuation of some event, function, or activity." In re Julio L., 197 Ariz. 1, 4 ¶ 11 (2000).

¶11 Viewed in a light most favorable to upholding the superior court's findings, Nissley, 238 Ariz. at 448 n.2, at the time of the detention, Mejia was yelling profanities, repositioning himself into an aggressive stance, and simultaneously reaching into his back pocket with his right hand as if to remove a weapon. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Mejia has not shown that the superior court erred by finding that police officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was engaged in disorderly conduct and posed a threat at the time of the detention. Accordingly, Mejia has not shown the detention was improper under the Fourth Amendment.

Mejia did not allege a First Amendment violation and, on this record, his conduct in taking an aggressive stance and reaching in his back pocket as if reaching for a weapon would not run afoul of First Amendment protections applicable to disorderly conduct based solely "verbal criticism" of law enforcement. See City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) ("[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.").

Given this conclusion, this court need not address Mejia's argument that any evidence obtained by police officers pursuant to an improper detention should have been suppressed. --------

CONCLUSION

¶12 Because Mejia has not shown the superior court erred, his convictions are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Mejia

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Feb 25, 2016
No. 1 CA-CR 15-0225 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Mejia

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMIE MEJIA, Appellant.

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Feb 25, 2016

Citations

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0225 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2016)