State v. Morris

Citations: 435 P.3d 1060; 246 Ariz. 154Docket: No. 2 CA-CR 2018-0123

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; January 22, 2019; Arizona; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The state is appealing the trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Raymond Verbon Morris III's backpack following his shoplifting arrest. The appellate court found that the trial court incorrectly determined there was no probable cause for Morris's arrest. The court reviewed the suppression motion by considering the evidence favorably towards upholding the trial court's ruling. 

On September 29, 2017, a loss-prevention employee observed Morris on surveillance video engaging in shoplifting activities, including removing a price tag from sunglasses and placing various items, including condoms and an energy drink, into his backpack. When police arrived, the employee provided them with video evidence of Morris’s actions and indicated he had concealed items in the backpack. 

Despite multiple items being placed in his cart, Morris did not scan the sunglasses, energy drink, or condoms at the self-checkout. After his credit card was declined, police confronted him, citing suspicions of shoplifting, and arrested him based on his concealment of items and failure to pay. A subsequent search of his backpack revealed additional items, including narcotics, drug paraphernalia, and a loaded handgun. Morris was indicted on charges related to the possession of weapons and drugs. The appellate court vacated the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Morris filed a motion to suppress evidence found in his backpack, claiming his arrest was unlawful and the search incident to arrest was invalid. The trial court granted the motion, determining there was no probable cause for his arrest for shoplifting. The court noted that Morris did not conceal the sunglasses but displayed them on his head, and neither deputies nor loss prevention officers witnessed him concealing the condoms and energy drink. The court highlighted that Morris had not left the store with unpaid items and still had the option to pay, return, or leave the items at the register when his debit card was declined. Consequently, the court found no probable cause for arrest as Morris had not engaged in theft.

Following this, the state appealed the trial court's decision to suppress. The state contended that police had probable cause to arrest Morris for shoplifting, arguing that a person does not need to attempt to leave a store without paying to be guilty of shoplifting. The state cited Morris’s actions of cutting off the price tag of the sunglasses, placing them on his head, and attempting to pay for other items without paying for the sunglasses, asserting that these actions indicated an intent to shoplift. Additionally, the state argued that Morris's behavior with his backpack suggested he was concealing items, as the condoms and energy drink were no longer in the cart.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring that arrests be based on probable cause, which is defined as sufficient information for a reasonable person to believe an offense has been committed. A police officer can make a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause to believe the individual is the offender (A.R.S. 13-3883(A)). Probable cause is characterized as a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, less than the proof needed for conviction but more than mere suspicion. It is an objective standard, meaning the officer's personal belief in the sufficiency of the facts is irrelevant; rather, the collective knowledge of law enforcement at the time of the arrest is considered.

Additionally, the Fourth Amendment mandates suppression of evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest. Courts review suppression motions for abuse of discretion and determine probable cause compliance with the Fourth Amendment as a mixed question of law and fact, which is reviewed de novo. However, factual findings by the trial court, such as witness credibility and the reasonableness of police inferences, are given deference.

Arizona's shoplifting statute outlines that a person is guilty of shoplifting if they knowingly take goods from a store with the intent to deprive the owner of those goods, including through actions like removing items without paying, paying less than the price through deceit, or concealing the items.

Probable cause existed for the arrest of Morris based on the circumstances surrounding his actions in a store. Surveillance footage indicated that a box disappeared from his cart during a brief period when he was seen manipulating his backpack, suggesting a link between the two events. Additionally, Morris's actions—cutting off a tag from sunglasses, discarding it, and wearing the sunglasses without including them in his purchases—further implied an intent to shoplift. Legal precedent supports that probable cause can arise from suspicious behavior, even if no one witnessed the actual concealment of items.

Morris contended that he had not completed the offense of shoplifting because he had not yet passed the point of sale, arguing that ownership of goods only transfers at that moment. However, the interpretation of A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(5) clarifies that a person can be deemed to have "obtained" goods through concealment without needing to reach the point of sale. The statutory language indicates that concealment alone suffices to complete the crime of shoplifting, affirming that the police had probable cause for Morris's arrest.

The shoplifting statute A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(5) is based on common-law larceny, with similar elements, particularly regarding asportation, which is the act of carrying away or removing goods. Concealing an item in a store satisfies the asportation requirement of larceny. Courts have determined that larceny is complete when goods are concealed, meaning that movement and concealment of goods within a store can constitute theft. Morris argues for a requirement that a person must pass the point of sale for it to be considered shoplifting, citing that other provisions of the statute involve payment deficiencies determined at the point of sale. However, the absence of payment language in A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(5) suggests it should not be inferred, supported by legal precedents indicating that the inclusion of specific provisions in one statute implies their exclusion in another. Additionally, imposing such a requirement would make A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(5) redundant, as A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(1) already addresses situations involving unpurchased items at the point of sale.

Morris argues that labeling a customer's act of placing items in a reusable bag as shoplifting before reaching the point of sale would lead to absurd outcomes, as A.R.S. 13-1805(B) establishes a presumption of intent to shoplift if a container is used to facilitate shoplifting. The court agrees with Morris that such an interpretation is unreasonable. Morris's argument assumes that placing items in a bag equates to 'concealment' under A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(5). However, 'concealment' can mean more than just removing items from sight; it can imply hiding or keeping items out of notice. A customer using a reusable shopping bag does not hide the store's merchandise, even if it's not immediately visible. The court differentiates this behavior from Morris's actions, where he enclosed store goods in his backpack without necessity, as he already had items in his shopping cart. The court finds that police had probable cause to arrest Morris for shoplifting by concealment, vacating the trial court's ruling and remanding for further proceedings. The analysis focuses on specific evidence from the video, concluding that the trial court's factual findings do not necessitate a different evaluation of the video evidence. The court does not address whether the trial court erred in ruling that police lacked probable cause regarding the non-concealed sunglasses.