James Moeller

The case concerned the constitutionality of Article XXVIII of the Arizona Constitution, adopted in 1988, which designated English as the official state language and required all state and local government officials and employees to conduct government business only in English. The Arizona Supreme Court held that the provision violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by restricting non-English speakers' access to government and limiting the political speech of public officials and employees. The court further ruled that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it burdened the core First Amendment rights of a specific class without advancing a legitimate state interest. The decision emphasized that it did not require any government entity to provide services in languages other than English and expressed no view on narrower English-only rules.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved multiple Arizona school districts seeking a declaration that they were not required to release teachers' birth dates to a broadcasting company under the state's Public Records Law. The company sought the information to perform criminal background checks on teachers following an incident involving a substitute teacher who was a registered sex offender. The trial court balanced the teachers' privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure and ruled in favor of nondisclosure. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the privacy interests in birth dates, which are personal identifying information provided with an expectation of confidentiality, outweighed the public need for disclosure by the districts, particularly since the information was available from other sources.

free speechcivil rights

In Sanchez v. City of Tucson, a minor child was catastrophically injured while crossing a state route intersection in Tucson, prompting a negligence suit against the City for breaching its alleged duty to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition by failing to install a traffic light. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, which the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the City owed no duty absent control over the state route. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that factual issues existed as to whether the City assumed a duty through its intergovernmental agreement with the State for maintenance, patterns of joint control, and state authorization to install signals.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Altieri, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of transporting and possessing marijuana for sale based on evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The stop was initiated solely on an anonymous tip describing the driver, vehicle, and alleged contraband, with officers confirming only readily observable details before pulling the car over. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that the anonymous tip lacked the predictive details or other indicia of reliability needed to establish reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, so the evidence should have been suppressed. The court distinguished the case from precedents like Draper and Alabama v. White, noting that the tip provided only neutral, existing facts observable by any member of the public rather than private or future information.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a claim by Fred Denton, acting as guardian and conservator for his incapacitated wife Frances, against a nursing home and related parties for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of Arizona's elder abuse statute arising from alleged abusive and negligent care that caused her severe injuries including falls, dehydration, and a serious bedsore. Frances died while the lawsuit was pending, and the defendants sought to dismiss the claim for pain and suffering damages on the ground that such claims do not survive under Arizona's general survival statute. The Arizona Supreme Court held that a representative of an elder abuse victim may recover damages for the victim's pain and suffering even after the victim's death. The court reasoned that the specific provisions and policy of the more recent elder abuse statute, which expressly authorizes recovery of actual, consequential, and punitive damages, control over the older, general survival statute that generally bars such recovery.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned whether a defendant charged with misdemeanor simple assault, designated as domestic violence under Arizona law, was entitled to a jury trial in municipal court due to potential consequences under the federal firearms prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special action jurisdiction and held that no jury trial was required. The court reasoned that Arizona's established test for jury trial entitlement in misdemeanors, focusing on incarceration length, moral turpitude, and relation to common-law crimes, was not altered by the federal statute, as the firearms restriction did not constitute an additional penalty severe enough to make the offense serious under state standards. The decision reaffirmed that federal law does not compel changes to Arizona's jury trial rules for such cases.

criminal lawgunsprocedure