State of Arizona v. Jose Salvador Guillen, 223 Ariz. 314

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arizona held that a resident's consent to search her home was valid even assuming that a prior police dog sniff at the exterior of the garage violated the Arizona Constitution. Applying the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, the court concluded that the resident's lack of knowledge of the dog sniff constituted an intervening circumstance and that the alleged violation was not flagrant. The court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and affirmed Guillen's convictions.

Holdings

1. Consent to search is valid when the consenting resident was unaware of the prior alleged constitutional violation and the circumstances sufficiently attenuate any taint under the Brown factors.
2. The officers' subjective motivation or whether the canine sniff prompted the request for consent is irrelevant where the consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the alleged illegality.

Questions Presented

1. Whether consent to search a home is invalid or tainted when it follows an allegedly unconstitutional canine sniff of the home's exterior that was unknown to the person giving consent.
2. Whether the court of appeals erred by remanding for a determination of whether the officers' request for consent was triggered by the information obtained through the canine sniff.

Disposition

vacated