Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Rowland
Citations: 172 Ariz. 182; 836 P.2d 395; 104 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 39; 1992 Ariz. App. LEXIS 13Docket: No. 2 CA-CR 91-0436
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; January 21, 1992; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The trial court ruled that Thomas John Rowland was not under arrest when his blood was drawn for a BAC test, leading to the suppression of the test results based on the implied consent statute. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding that Rowland was indeed under arrest at the time of the blood draw. The incident occurred on October 15, 1989, when Rowland's vehicle struck a disabled vehicle and two people, resulting in one death at the scene and another fatality en route to the hospital. Officer Phillip Michael Cianciolo conducted the investigation, advised Rowland of his Miranda rights, and performed field sobriety tests, concluding Rowland was driving under the influence. Rowland was handcuffed and transported to the hospital without his consent, where he was informed about the implied consent law. Although Cianciolo stated that Rowland was not under arrest, Rowland was later taken to pretrial services and not formally charged that night due to strategic reasons concerning potential felony charges. Rowland's motion to suppress was based on the assertion that he was not under arrest when the implied consent was invoked. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in its determination, affirming that Rowland was under arrest, and thus the BAC results should not have been suppressed. The appellate court did not address the state's second argument regarding the decision not to file formal charges, as the first point was sufficient to reverse the trial court's order. The determination of whether an arrest took place involves mixed factual and legal questions, with appellate courts having greater scrutiny over legal conclusions. Cianciolo provided Rowland with multiple Miranda warnings, placed him in handcuffs, and transported him to a hospital without his consent, constituting an arrest. The Arizona Supreme Court defines an arrest as occurring when police restrict a person's freedom of movement. Rowland's freedom was curtailed when handcuffed and placed in a police car, and further restricted during transport to the hospital. A reasonable person in Rowland's situation would perceive they were not free to leave, regardless of Rowland's claims of consent or cooperation. The determination of arrest is based on an objective standard, not the officer’s subjective intent, making Cianciolo’s statement that Rowland was not under arrest irrelevant. The significant restriction of Rowland's movement and the appropriate use of force (given that he did not resist) further support the conclusion of an arrest. Case law indicates that handcuffing is generally indicative of arrest, and multiple Miranda warnings also suggest an arrest has occurred. Although Rowland argues that no single factor constitutes an arrest, the combination of his handcuffing, repeated Miranda warnings, and restricted movement confirms that he was indeed under arrest. Consequently, the trial court's conclusion that Rowland was not arrested was erroneous, leading to the vacating of its order suppressing the BAC evidence.