Background
After a traffic stop, officers towed and inventoried a car in which Bryan Gibson was the front-seat passenger. Under his seat, they found a black box containing nearly four ounces of methamphetamine, 88 fentanyl pills, and small baggies. A later search of Gibson’s phone, authorized by warrant, uncovered messages the detective interpreted as discussing drug sales involving pills, methamphetamine, and quantities comparable to those found in the box.
A jury convicted Gibson of possession of dangerous drugs for sale and possession of narcotic drugs for sale. The superior court sentenced him as a category-three repetitive offender to consecutive aggravated 20-year prison terms.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. The warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Gibson’s phone even if it had included the other occupants’ statements denying knowledge of the black box or having seen Gibson with it. The drugs and sales-related baggies under Gibson’s seat, combined with the detective’s experience concerning phones and drug trafficking, supported a fair probability that a phone contained evidence of trafficking.
The court also upheld admission of Gibson’s texts under Rule 404(b), noting that Gibson did not challenge all of the trial court’s stated non-propensity grounds, including identity, plan, and preparation. It found no abuse of discretion in permitting a co-owner of the car to invoke the Fifth Amendment, excluding certain of her statements as hearsay, or excluding speculative third-party-culpability evidence about her alleged drug activity. The evidence, including the texts and the drugs beneath Gibson’s seat, was sufficient for the jury to find knowing possession and control. Finally, the court upheld category-three repetitive-offender sentencing and consecutive sentences for the methamphetamine and fentanyl offenses.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause to search a phone may remain intact despite omitted statements that do not identify another owner of drugs found near the defendant.
- A witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment where testimony could expose the witness to an uncharged drug-for-sale offense.
- Possession-for-sale convictions involving different controlled substances may support consecutive sentences, even when the substances were found in the same container.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt: proximity to drugs and trafficking indicators may support a phone search even though conviction requires additional evidence. Here, the phone messages supplied the circumstantial link the jury could use to find knowing possession.
Because this is a memorandum decision, it is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.