1.3

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 1.3 Application of Federal and Arizona Provisions ? General Rules

Search and seizure issues are resolved by assessing whether an officer’s actions comply with the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 1598 (2008) (An arrest in compliance with the Fourth Amendment was lawful, notwithstanding a contrary Virginia state statute. “[I]t is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law. That amendment does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest.”).

Arizona courts may not interpret the United States Constitution more broadly than the United States Supreme Court. Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769 (2001). Nor can Arizona courts provide less protection than the Fourth Amendment requires. Petersen v. City of Mesa, 207 Ariz. 35, 38 n. 3, 83 P.3d 35, 38 n.3 (2004).

State constitutions, however, may grant individuals greater protections than they might receive under the federal constitution. In Arizona, “except in cases involving ‘unlawful’ warrantless home entries, Arizona courts have not applied Article 2, Section 8 to grant broader protections against search and seizure than those available under the federal constitution.” State v. Juarez, 203 Ariz. 441, 447, 55 P.3d 784, 790 (App. 2002) (Div. 1) (Arizona Constitution does not provide for an “automatic standing” rule that does not exist under the Fourth Amendment, citing cases; “[n]either Article 2, Section 8, nor Arizona case law supports the extension of the privacy interests guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution to individuals who are unable to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched”). See also State v. Fristoe, 251 Ariz. 255, 489 P.3d 1200 (App. 2021) (Div. 2), review denied (Mar. 1, 2022) (Google is not a government actor, and the private search doctrine, under which the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches conducted by private individuals, applies under Article 2, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution, the “Private Affairs Clause.” “[O]ur supreme court has been reluctant to expand that provision beyond the Fourth Amendment’s reach, except in cases involving warrantless home entries.”) (internal quotations omitted); State v. Mixton, 250 Ariz. 282, 478 P.3d 1227 (2021) (“Neither the federal nor the Arizona Constitution requires a search warrant or court order” for IP addresses and ISP subscriber information, which may be obtained by subpoena. The court declined the defendant’s request to find greater protection under Arizona Constitution.); State v. Smith, 250 Ariz. 69, 475 P.3d 558 (2020), cert. denied, 20-6990, 2021 WL 1240961 (2021) (suppression was not warranted under Art. 2 § 8, noting that although the provision provides greater protection regarding warrantless entries into the home, “CSLI does not involve a warrantless entry into a person’s home. And here, even if the Arizona Constitution provided greater...