Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his girlfriend’s driveway because he was a frequent overnight guest there, and he was coming there to spend the night. (There is a discussion of the semi-private nature of a driveway under curtilage.) Here, defendant did not stop immediately when the officer turned on his lights. Instead, he drove to his girlfriend’s driveway, and that was implied consent for the officer to follow there. State v. Hernandez, 2018 Ariz. LEXIS 147 (May 18, 2018):
Although the driver’s acquiescence to the stop, which is compelled by law, may not indicate consent to the stop itself, the driver’s choice to lead the officers to a specific location for the stop constitutes the driver’s implied consent to the officer’s presence at that location. Cf. Brown v. McClennen, 239 Ariz. 521, 522 ¶ 1 (2016) (noting that “[c]onsent cannot be given ‘freely and voluntarily’ if the subject of a search merely acquiesces to a claim of lawful authority” (quoting Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548–49 (1968))). Accordingly, police may reasonably assume that if a pursued driver, in acquiescence to a traffic stop, turns into a private driveway, the driver unequivocally communicates consent through his conduct in causing the stop’s occurrence on the property. See State v. Tucker, 118 Ariz. 76, 79 (1978) (noting that “the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches demands a waiver by unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent”).