Id.; see also State v. Dawley, 201 Ariz. 285, 287, ¶ 4, 34 P.3d 394, 396 (App.2001) (noting Love’s “totality” approach a departure from Zavala’s bright-line test). We are not aware of any authority placing a burden on a police officer to determine the ultimate applicability of the safe harbor before effecting an arrest. It is doubtful the officer would even know the “totality of the circumstances” at that juncture. Indeed, the Zavala court inferentially rejected Potter’s contention by noting that probable cause existed to arrest the unconscious driver pulled off the highway in that case, even though the safe harbor eventually applied to immunize him from conviction for DUI. Zavala, 136 Ariz. at 358, 666 P.2d at 458; see also Barrett, 119 Ariz. at 391-92, 581 P.2d at 236-37 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15 Even if an arresting officer is
holding that the factfinder may conclude that recovery is not likely when the car is left on street with keys in the car holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver holding location of car off highway position of driver slumped over steering wheel and keys in ignition provided reasonable grounds to require breathalyzer test holding that the leaving of the keys in the ignition of an unlocked and unattended vehicle parked on an outdoor lot at night is negligence as a matter of law holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause