State v. Padilla

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/05/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: JT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) LEO PATRICK PADILLA, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) 1 CA-CR 11-0099 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) FILED 4/5/2012 Appeal from the Superior Court in Apache County Cause No. S0100CR2008269 The Honorable Donna J. Grimsley, Judge AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Melissa M. Swearingen, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Emily L. Danies Tucson Attorney for Appellant ________________________________________________________________ G O U L D, Judge ¶1 Leo Patrick Padilla appeals his convictions and resulting sentences for one count of aggravated DUI while a minor is present, one count of driving with a blood alcohol content ( BAC ) of 0.08 or more while a minor is present, and one count of aggravated extreme driving with a BAC of 0.15 or more while a minor is present, all class six felonies. He argues the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained as fruit of an illegal traffic stop. For the following reasons we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background1 ¶2 Around received a turning 9:30 dispatch brodies 2 Fairgrounds. about on call reporting the July parking 12, 2008, that lot of Deputy three the Wallace trucks Apache were County When he responded to the location, there were no trucks present. truck in p.m. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Wallace located a five or six blocks from the fairgrounds. He conducted a traffic stop and the driver confirmed he had been doing brodies trucks. ¶3 at the fairgrounds with a few other pick-up Deputy Wallace gave the driver a verbal warning. After concluding the traffic stop, Deputy Wallace drove to the north end of the roadway and parked near Barth 1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the convictions and resulting sentences. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 A brody consists of quickly turning a vehicle in a tight circle; brodies are usually done on dirt, mud or grass and cause damage to the driving surface. 2 Park. Barth Park is an area known to be frequented by juveniles and adults for drinking, loitering, littering, and engaging in other publicly disruptive activities. While parked, the deputy saw a pick-up truck drive toward the back of the field, make a quick turn, and park. It was dark when the deputy made these observations, and the lighting at Barth Park was very poor. As a result, Deputy Wallace could only see the truck s headlights to track its turning motion. After turning the brody, the truck pulled away from the field and drove toward town; Deputy Wallace pulled the truck over. Once the truck had stopped, Deputy Wallace approached to conduct a traffic stop. ¶4 Padilla was driving the truck; in the passenger seat was his girlfriend s minor child. While conducting the traffic stop, Deputy Wallace noticed a strong odor of alcohol emanating from Padilla. He also observed beer and liquor bottles lying in the cab of the truck. Deputy Wallace subsequently searched the vehicle and discovered an open bottle of Crown Royal between the driver and passenger seats. alcohol, Padilla admitted When asked if he had been drinking to having a beer. After Padilla performed poorly on several field sobriety tests, Deputy Wallace placed Padilla under arrest, and took him to the police station. At the police station Padilla agreed to submit to an Intoxilyzer test, which revealed a breath alcohol concentration of 0.155 and 0.156 on successive blows. 3 ¶5 Padilla was charged with one count of aggravated DUI while a minor is present, one count of driving with a BAC of 0.08 or more while a minor is present, and one count of aggravated extreme driving with a BAC of 0.15 or more while a minor is present. suppress grounds arguing and suppressed all as Before Deputy Wallace evidence fruits of trial, Padilla stopped collected the filed illegal in him the a motion without to legal case After stop. should holding suppression hearing, the court denied Padilla s motion. be a Padilla waived a jury trial and submitted the case to the court on a stipulated record. The judge found Padilla guilty on all counts and sentenced him to three years probation with a mandatory jail term of thirty consecutive days. Imposition of Padilla s sentence was stayed pending this appeal. Discussion ¶6 to Padilla claims the court improperly denied his motion suppress. He argues Deputy Wallace grounds to conduct the traffic stop. did not have legal We review the court s denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb the ruling absent clear and manifest error. State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519, 523, 809 P.2d 944, 948 (1991); State v. Zamora, 220 Ariz. 63, 67, ¶ 7, 202 P.3d 528, 532 (App. 2009). [W]e consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view it in the light most favorable to 4 upholding the trial court s factual findings. State v. Fornof, 218 Ariz. 74, 76, ¶ 8, 179 P.3d 954, 956 (App. 2008). to the trial court s factual conclusions of law de novo. determinations and We defer review its Zamora, 220 Ariz. at 67, ¶ 7, 202 P.3d at 532. ¶7 A traffic Amendment. police stop is a seizure under the Fourth As a result, before conducting a traffic stop a officer must have a reasonable suspicion of activity supported by specific, articulable facts. criminal State v. Starr, 222 Ariz. 65, 68, ¶¶ 9-12, 213 P.3d 214, 217 (App. 2009); see also United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)) (discussing standard of reasonable suspicion). reasonable suspicion, To we determine examine if the the officer totality had of a the circumstances from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996). ¶8 Considering the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Wallace had a reasonable Padilla for reckless suspicion driving. to Deputy stop and Wallace investigate received a dispatch call advising that three vehicles were seen turning brodies at the Apache County Fairgrounds. A few minutes after receiving the call, the deputy stopped a truck driving in the vicinity of the fairgrounds. The driver confirmed that he and 5 a few other trucks had been doing brodies at the fairgrounds. About thirty minutes later, Deputy Wallace saw another truck pull onto Barth Park, an area known for illegal and publicly disruptive activities. The deputy observed a truck make a quick turn, which appeared to be a brody, park, and then drive toward town. At the suppression hearing, the deputy testified the reason for the stop was the turn on the high speed and where he was at, and the . . . previous conditions of kids being up there and things like that. Based on these facts, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla s motion to suppress. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) ( [T]he fact that the stop occurred in a high crime area [is] among the relevant contextual considerations in a Terry analysis. ); State v. Ramsey, 223 Ariz. 480, 485, ¶ 26, 224 P.3d 977, 982 (App. 2010) (stating that the critical fact that investigatory stop occurred in a high crime area in addition to defendant s conduct supported officer s reasonable suspicion); Fornof, 218 Ariz. at 78, ¶ 17, 179 P.3d at 958 (stating that specific location known for drug-related activity is a reasonable suspicion). 6 fact that may give rise to Conclusion ¶9 For the reasons stated above, we affirm Padilla s convictions and sentences. /S/ ___________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge CONCURRING: /S/ ____________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge /S/ ____________________________________ ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER, Judge 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.