Abstract

The Arizona Supreme Court's interpretation of a law affecting criminal procedure becomes, in theory, the "law of the land" in Arizona. In practice, uniform application of the law can be complex. Because the Court lacks enforcement power, it must rely on law enforcement officers to effectuate its interpretation of a law. This, of course, requires officers to understand the Court's interpretation and how that interpretation affects their daily duties. Presumably, this starts at an institutional level. That is, law enforcement agencies must inform their officers of evolving case law, provide guidance to their officers for how to comply with that law, and adjust their internal policies accordingly. In Arizona, there are approximately 162 law enforcement agencies, each of which has the authority to set its own training practices and internal policies. Given this latitude among agencies and the inherent difficulty in understanding case law, is it a flawed assumption that the "law of the land" uniformly becomes the "law on the street"? 

This Note investigates that question using the recent Arizona Supreme Court decision Carrillo v. Houser, which changed the common understanding of Arizona's so-called "implied consent law." The Court in Carrillo clarified that an officer must obtain express agreement from an arrestee before the officer can procure a warrantless alcohol or drug test. This Note examines how Arizona law enforcement agencies informed their officers of Carrillo and, more fundamentally, how the decision affected institutional policies and procedures. While the research shows that each law enforcement agency interviewed made an effort to comply with Carrillo, how the agencies responded was not uniform. This suggests that how the "law of the land" becomes the "law on the street" depends on which street—or, more accurately, which law enforcement jurisdiction.

How to Cite