Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gaygreen2 sentences2015Gay, 214 Ariz. at 217, ¶ 4 . 2015Gay, 214 Ariz. at 217, ¶ 4 . | 2 | 2 |
Missouri v. Seibertgreen1 sentence2021Cf. Seibert, 542 U.S. at 604 (defendant’s post-Miranda statement in a “two-stage” interrogation is inadmissible where “police protocol for custodial interrogation . . . calls for giving no [Miranda] warnings . . . until interrogation has produced a confession”). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen1 sentence2020The superior court’s duty is “to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’ that probable cause existed.” Id. at 238-39 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). ¶14 The relevant statute states in pertinent part, “[a] person commits sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly . . . receiving . . . [or] possessing . . . any visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.” A.R.S. § 13-3553(A)(2) (emphasis added). “‘Exploitive exhibition’ means the actual or simulated exhibition of the genitals or pubic or rectal a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackmoregreen1 sentence2020Detective Angel also recounted that P.Z. said “some of the focus was on the genitalia of the children.” See State v. Blackmore, 186 Ariz. 630, 631 (1996) (stating that when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review only the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durhamgreen1 sentence2018See State v. Durham, 108 Ariz. 233 , 234–35 (1972) (noting that when a suspect told an officer that he had heroin for his own personal use, “[t]his admission, alone, justified an immediate arrest”); see also A.R.S. § 13- 3415(A) (classifying possession of drug paraphernalia as a class 6 felony); A.R.S. § 13-3883(a)(1) (authorizing a warrantless arrest based on probable cause that the person to be arrested committed a felony offense). | 1 | 1 |
Van Herreweghe v. Burkegreen2 sentences2014Van Herr-eweghe v. Burke, 201 Ariz. 387, ¶ 10 , 36 P.3d 65, 68 (App.2001). ¶ 21 The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Nevarez initially requested an independent blood draw when he was informed of his rights. 2014Van Herr-eweghe v. Burke, 201 Ariz. 387, ¶ 10 , 36 P.3d 65, 68 (App.2001). ¶ 21 The evidence at the suppression hearing established that Nevarez initially requested an independent blood draw when he was informed of his rights. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B.
green
1 sentence2021FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Viewing the evidence at the suppression hearing in a light most favorable to sustaining the order, State v. Butler, 232 Ariz. 84 , 87 ¶ 8 (2013), one morning in February 2019, an Arizona Department of Public Safety Trooper saw a gray sedan going eight miles over the speed limit on Interstate 40. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Zamora
green
1 sentence2021Zamora, 220 Ariz. at 65–66 ¶ 1 n.2. ¶12 Here, the evidence at the suppression hearing shows that the detectives at the hospital did not deliberately obtain statements in violation of Miranda in a coordinated attempt with Detective Dodge to obtain a subsequently Mirandized confession at the formal interview. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2020The Investigatory Stop: Reasonable Suspicion ¶12 The specific issue of “whether the police had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified conducting an investigatory stop is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo.” Rogers, 186 Ariz. at 510 . ¶13 According to the evidence at the suppression hearing, Sergeant Pilkington saw two males—Martinez and Noriega—within minutes after learning a witness reported seeing white or Hispanic males running from a stolen vehicle one-half mile away. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Don Jacob Havatone
green
1 sentence2019Havatone, 241 Ariz. at 509 ¶ 11. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2018Assuming Snow told the detective that he was carrying a “G pipe,” known to the detective as a type of drug 1 Another exception is an investigatory stop and frisk for weapons, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 30–31 (1968), but the State does not contend that the search in this case was proper on this basis, and the evidence at the suppression hearing supports the court’s conclusion that it was not. 3 STATE v. SNOW Decision of the Court paraphernalia, the detective had probable cause to arrest him for possession of drug paraphernalia—even absent other evidence of criminal conduct. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.