Court Opinion

ID: 9631693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:46:34.834784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:58.944552
License: Public Domain

CLABORNE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The record is clear on several points. First, the arrest of Evans was only because of the outstanding warrant reflected by the computer. Second, it is not clear at all that the justice court failed to notify the sheriff that the warrant had been quashed by the justice court. Nevertheless, the responsibility for a valid warrant to arrest remains with those effecting that arrest. Third, the arrest warrant had been quashed for approximately twenty-four days.
First, I feel that State v. Greene, 162 Ariz. 383, 783 P.2d 829 (App.1989), controls this case. A fair reading of that case indicates that if the police are negligent in failing to keep their computer entries up to date, the evidence obtained by an arrest based on a warrant which had been quashed should be suppressed. The trial court was well within its discretion in coming to the conclusion that they could have been negligent.
Second, although the case is not directly on point, a plethora of cases dealing with invalid warrants and police computer entries was collected in State v. Peterson, 171 Ariz. 333, 335, 830 P.2d 854 (App.1991).
Finally, Peterson held that the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule permitting the introduction of evidence obtained through an invalid arrest warrant does not apply to this kind of case, either on the basis of the Arizona statute or on the basis of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). It is the responsibility of the police to update their records, and such a failure should not overcome a defendant’s constitutional right to a valid warrant or probable cause before an arrest and search. There is a growing problem with police reliance on electronically recorded and disseminated criminal files. See People v. Joseph, 128 Ill.App.3d 668, 83 Ill.Dec. 883, 470 N.E.2d 1303 (1984). There is nothing in this record which would justify disturbing the discretion of the trial court in suppressing this evidence under these facts. I would affirm.