8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2017 0 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. Vincentgreen2 sentences2007See Vincent, 147 Ariz. at 8 , 708 P.2d at 99 (finding it contrary to “sound judicial administration” to preclude an untimely motion “so as to proceed to a trial in which a conviction would be defeasible” on the merits of that motion). 2007See Vincent, 147 Ariz. at 8 , 708 P.2d at 99 (finding it contrary to “sound judicial administration” to preclude an untimely motion “so as to proceed to a trial in which a conviction would be defeasible” on the merits of that motion). | 2 | 2 |
Spinelli v. United Statesred2 sentences1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t 1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t | 1 | 4 |
State v. Aguilargreen2 sentences2017Before trial, the court denied Aguilar’s motion to sever the charges, reasoning in part “that the evidence as to each victim would be admissible under [Rule] 404(c) as to the charges involving the other victims.” Id. at 41, ¶¶ 3-4 . 2017On appeal, the supreme court noted that the trial court had “limited its review to the transcript of the grand jury proceedings, the pleadings, and the arguments of counsel at oral argument,” none of which “contained testimony from the victims[.]” Id. at 49, ¶ 33 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jerry Richard Larkingreen2 sentences1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). 1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John J. Brennangreen2 sentences1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). 1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Oscar Squella-Avendanogreen2 sentences1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t 1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t | 1 | 1 |
Pipkin v. Californiagreen2 sentences1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t 1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t | 1 | 1 |
Mullin v. City of Mansfieldgreen2 sentences1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t 1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t | 1 | 1 |
West Morris Regional Board of Education v. Sillsgreen2 sentences1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t 1975The Aguilar test was modified in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that the latter prong of Aguilar can be met by description in the affidavit of criminal activity “in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that [the informant] is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation,” 393 U.S. at 416 , 89 S.Ct. at 589 , and that even an undisclosed informant’s tip found wanting under the Aguilar t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences1972Further that said informant did purchase within the past 48 hours a quantity of marijuana (hashish) from Lynn Adams at University Quadrant Dormitory, while under the surveillance of your Affiant, and did deliver said marijuana (hashish) to your Affiant.” (Emphasis added.) The first prong of the Aguilar test which we must apply to these facts asks what the underlying circumstances are from which the informant concluded that the marijuana was in Lynn Adams’ apartment. 378 U.S. 108, 114 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 . 1972Further that said informant did purchase within the past 48 hours a quantity of marijuana (hashish) from Lynn Adams at University Quadrant Dormitory, while under the surveillance of your Affiant, and did deliver said marijuana (hashish) to your Affiant.” (Emphasis added.) The first prong of the Aguilar test which we must apply to these facts asks what the underlying circumstances are from which the informant concluded that the marijuana was in Lynn Adams’ apartment. 378 U.S. 108, 114 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 . | 2 | 1972–1979 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1979In the case of State v. Miller, 112 Ariz. 95 , 537 P.2d 965 (1975) the court stated: *15 “It is required by Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), that an informant must be credible or reliable and that the circumstances underlying his information be stated. 1979In the case of State v. Miller, 112 Ariz. 95 , 537 P.2d 965 (1975) the court stated: *15 “It is required by Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), that an informant must be credible or reliable and that the circumstances underlying his information be stated. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Domingo S. Canieso and Siu Tsien Chou
green
2 sentences1979When a tip not meeting the Aguilar test has generated police investigation and this has developed significant corroboration or other ‘probative indications of criminal activity along the lines suggested by the informant,’ . . . the tip, even though not qualifying under Aguilar , may be used to give such additional color as is needed to elevate the information acquired by police observation above the floor required for probable cause.” (Emphasis in original) 470 F.2d at 1231 . 1 Arizona has not been silent on this point. 1979When a tip not meeting the Aguilar test has generated police investigation and this has developed significant corroboration or other ‘probative indications of criminal activity along the lines suggested by the informant,’ . . . the tip, even though not qualifying under Aguilar , may be used to give such additional color as is needed to elevate the information acquired by police observation above the floor required for probable cause.” (Emphasis in original) 470 F.2d at 1231 . 1 Arizona has not been silent on this point. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ernest v. Carter
green
2 sentences1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). 1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
green
2 sentences1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). 1979United States v. Anderson, supra; see also, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. at 415 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; United States v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 at 720 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1092 , 97 S.Ct. 1104 , 51 L.Ed.2d 538 ; United States v. Larkin, 510 F.2d 13 at 15 (9th Cir. 1974). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Draper v. United States
green
2 sentences1974Spinelli v. United States, supra; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). 1 In Spinelli , the court held that once it is found that the unidentified informant’s tip does not in and of itself pass the Aguilar requirement (i. e., "underlying circumstances” are lacking to show both the reason for the informant’s conclusion that a crime has been committed as well as the informant’s reliability), the magistrate should then consider other allegations in the affidavit which corroborate the tip and ask himself the following question: “Can it fairly be said that the 1974Spinelli v. United States, supra; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). 1 In Spinelli , the court held that once it is found that the unidentified informant’s tip does not in and of itself pass the Aguilar requirement (i. e., "underlying circumstances” are lacking to show both the reason for the informant’s conclusion that a crime has been committed as well as the informant’s reliability), the magistrate should then consider other allegations in the affidavit which corroborate the tip and ask himself the following question: “Can it fairly be said that the | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.