Opinion ID: 1441601
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confirmatory searches

Text: The state argued and the court of appeals' majority found that although there was no exigency justifying the DEB agents' warrantless entry, the agents' actions were nonetheless justified because such actions were only to confirm or refute McCaslin's suspicions of an illegal drug laboratory.... DeWitt, 182 Ariz. at 353, 897 P.2d at 655. We disagree. The DEB agents' actions, under the court of appeals' rationale, epitomize the search now, warrant later theory of a warrantless confirmatory search. The court of appeals relied on People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91, 227 Cal. Rptr. 654, 720 P.2d 2 (1986), to bring the DEB agents' actions within Arizona's constitutional norms. We believe the court of appeals misconstrues Duncan. Taken as a whole, Duncan is a unique exigent circumstances case, not an approval of confirmatory searches. Duncan is clearly distinguishable, as Judge Grant's dissent correctly observes. DeWitt, 182 Ariz. at 357-58, 897 P.2d at 659-60. In Duncan, it was unclear whether a drug laboratory was actually operating, the smell of ether was so strong that it made the first officer dizzy, and when the second officer entered he hurried the first officer out of the house because he feared an explosion. Duncan, 227 Cal. Rptr. at 655, 720 P.2d at 4. As already noted, the officers at Defendant's residence took no such action. In Duncan, continuing exigencies justified the ongoing presence of the officers attempting to deal with the problems. Here, the original exigency had lapsed. Moreover, the items were not contraband, they were not in use, and they could have been used for a number of lawful purposes. The state concedes that prior to the DEB agents' entry and search they lacked probable cause to obtain a warrant. It follows, therefore, that the items' evidentiary value was not immediately apparent to McCaslin or Saylor. With no probable cause and no warrant, and the exigent circumstances justifying McCaslin's and Saylor's warrantless entries having evaporated, the police were without justification to remain for an additional warrantless entry and search. See Cook, 115 Ariz. at 194, 564 P.2d at 883. The Cook rule does not permit the ongoing presence of officers waiting to confirm mere suspicion. As this court has stated previously, the Arizona Constitution provides broad protection in preserving the sanctity of homes and in creating a right of privacy. Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 264-65, 689 P.2d at 523-24. It is precisely a warrantless entry that constitutes the invasion of the home and the infringement of the right of privacy therein. Martin, 139 Ariz. at 474, 679 P.2d at 497.