Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

B 
Like Melendez-Diaz, this case involves drugs.  In Decem-
ber  2019,  Arizona  law  enforcement  officers  executed  a 
search  warrant  on  a  property  in  the  foothills  of  Yuma 
County.  Inside  a  shed  on  the  property,  they  found  peti-
tioner  Jason  Smith.  They  also  found  a  large  quantity  of 
what  appeared  to  be  drugs  and  drug-related  items.    As  a 
result, Smith was charged with possessing dangerous drugs
(methamphetamine) for sale; possessing marijuana for sale;
possessing  narcotic  drugs  (cannabis)  for  sale;  and  pos-
sessing drug paraphernalia.  He pleaded not guilty, and the
case was set for trial. 

In preparation, the State sent items seized from the shed 
to  a  crime  lab  run  by  the  Arizona  Department  of  Public 
Safety (DPS) for a “full scientific analysis.”  App. to Pet. for 
Cert. 127a.  The State’s request identified Smith as the in-
dividual  “associated”  with  the  substances,  listed  the 
charges against him, and noted that “[t]rial ha[d] been set.” 
Ibid.  Analyst Elizabeth Rast communicated with prosecu-
tors about exactly which items needed to be examined, and
then ran the requested tests.  See id., at 99a. 

Rast prepared a set of typed notes and a signed report,
both on DPS letterhead, about the testing.  The notes docu-
mented her lab work and results.  They disclosed, for each 
of  eight  items:  a  “[d]escription”  of  the  item;  the  weight  of 
the item and how the weight was measured; the test(s) she 
performed  on  the  item,  including  whether  she  first  ran  a 
“[b]lank”  on  the  testing  equipment;  the  results  of  those
tests; and a “[c]onclusion” about the item’s identity.  See id., 
at 88a–98a.  The signed report then distilled the notes into
two pages of ultimate findings, denoted “results/interpreta-
tions.”  See id., at 85a–87a.  After listing the eight items,
the report stated that four “[c]ontained a usable quantity of 

—————— 
234, n. 23, 256 A. 3d 870, 901, n. 23 (2021); Commonwealth v. Jones, 472 
Mass. 707, 714, 37 N. E. 3d 589, 597 (2015).