Background
In February 2020, Yavapai County narcotics officers suspected Pride Raymond Bonds of drug activity and obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracker on his truck. After the tracker showed Bonds traveling from the Phoenix area northbound on Interstate 17, officers directed two sheriff’s deputies to intercept him. The deputies observed Bonds’ truck cross the right shoulder line twice on a straight stretch of interstate, providing the basis for a traffic stop.
During the stop, Bonds told a deputy he had nothing illegal in his truck or on his person and said the deputy could “help yourself.” The deputy confirmed Bonds’ consent to search. Officers then waited approximately 21 minutes for a drug-detection dog, which arrived and alerted to the presence of narcotics after it stuck its head through an open window of the truck. A subsequent search revealed a bag of methamphetamine; an empty syringe was found after the truck was impounded.
Bonds was indicted for sale or transportation of a dangerous drug and possession of drug paraphernalia. He filed three separate suppression motions challenging the legality of the stop, the duration of the detention, and the validity of his consent. All three were denied by the Yavapai County Superior Court. At trial, the court granted Bonds’ Rule 20 motion for acquittal on the transfer charge but allowed the jury to consider possession of methamphetamine as a lesser included offense. The jury convicted Bonds of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. On the traffic stop, the court distinguished this case from State v. Livingston, 206 Ariz. 145 (App. 2003), which had found a single, isolated shoulder-line crossing on a curved rural road insufficient to justify a stop. Here, Bonds crossed the shoulder line twice on a straight interstate, constituting a repeated violation of A.R.S. § 28-729(A)(1) and providing deputies with reasonable suspicion to stop the truck.
On the extended duration of the stop, the court agreed with the superior court that the encounter became consensual after Bonds agreed to a search. Bonds never asked to leave, appeared comfortable on body camera footage, voluntarily provided information, and made no objection when told officers were waiting for a drug-detection dog. His general, unqualified consent — “help yourself” — extended to the truck, particularly because he placed no express limitations on it and later asked a deputy to retrieve cigarettes from inside the truck without objection.
On the lesser included offense issue, the court held that possession of methamphetamine is a lesser included offense of transfer of methamphetamine because one cannot transfer drugs without first possessing them. Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.1(e), a defendant is on notice from the outset that the jury may consider lesser included offenses supported by the evidence. The pre-trial agreement between Bonds and the State — that the State would pursue only a transfer theory rather than a sale theory — did not bar the jury from considering possession, because the transfer theory itself necessarily encompassed possession.
Key Takeaways
- Two crossings of the shoulder line on a straight interstate constitute a continuing traffic violation supporting reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, distinguishing the isolated single-crossing scenario in Livingston.
- A general, unqualified statement of consent to search (“help yourself”) extends to the vehicle when the defendant places no express limitation on the scope and takes no steps to revoke or narrow consent during the encounter.
- A drug-detection dog alerting after putting its head through an open vehicle window does not constitute an unlawful search where the defendant has already consented to a search of the vehicle.
- Under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.1(e), a defendant charged with drug transfer is on notice that possession — a necessarily included offense — may be submitted to the jury, even after acquittal on the greater charge at the Rule 20 stage.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the breadth of general consent to search under Arizona law and clarifies how courts should distinguish Livingston when evaluating lane-departure stops. Defense practitioners should be aware that vague, expansive consent statements can be construed to cover the entire vehicle absent an explicit limiting instruction to officers at the time consent is given.
The ruling also illustrates the limits of pre-trial agreements about charging theories. Even where the parties agree the State will pursue only one theory at trial, that agreement cannot strip the jury of its right to consider lesser included offenses that are inherently embedded in the charged conduct. Prosecutors and defense counsel negotiating such agreements should draft them with specificity if the intent is to foreclose lesser included offense instructions.