State v. Petersen

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting defendant Rogers’s motion to suppress physical evidence and statements. It contends the court erred in its findings that Pima County Sheriff’s officers lacked probable cause to arrest the defendants and that the state had not met its burden of showing that Rogers voluntarily consented to a search of his car. We affirm.

The power tools that are the subject of the motion to suppress were stolen from a former employer of defendant Petersen. The employer named Petersen, who had recently been fired, as a suspect in the theft.…