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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 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. Organgreen2 sentences2020However, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, those requirements are subject to certain exceptions.” Organ, 225 Ariz. at 46 , ¶ 11 (citing Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (stating that the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a valid warrant supported by probable cause is “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions”). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the 2020However, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, those requirements are subject to certain exceptions.” Organ, 225 Ariz. at 46 , ¶ 11 (citing Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (stating that the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a valid warrant supported by probable cause is “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions”). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the | 4 | 4 |
People v. Raygreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 981 P.2d 928, 933-35 (1999) *301 (relying on community earetaking exception to approve warrantless entry into home that police believed might have been burglarized). ¶ 22 The State is not persuasive in arguing that we should extend the community caretaking exception to homes to ensure public safety. 2015See, e.g., People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464 , 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 981 P.2d 928, 933-35 (1999) *301 (relying on community earetaking exception to approve warrantless entry into home that police believed might have been burglarized). ¶ 22 The State is not persuasive in arguing that we should extend the community caretaking exception to homes to ensure public safety. | 1 | 3 |
Colorado v. Bertinegreen2 sentences2020Inventory procedures serve three “strong governmental interests”: “[1] to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, [2] to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and [3] to guard the police from danger.” Bertine, 479 U.S. at 372 . 2020However, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, those requirements are subject to certain exceptions.” Organ, 225 Ariz. at 46 , ¶ 11 (citing Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (stating that the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a valid warrant supported by probable cause is “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions”). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the | 1 | 2 |
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen1 sentence2020However, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, those requirements are subject to certain exceptions.” Organ, 225 Ariz. at 46 , ¶ 11 (citing Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (stating that the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a valid warrant supported by probable cause is “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions”). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the | 1 | 1 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020However, “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, those requirements are subject to certain exceptions.” Organ, 225 Ariz. at 46 , ¶ 11 (citing Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (stating that the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a valid warrant supported by probable cause is “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions”). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the | 1 | 1 |
Horton v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2018See Horton v. Mitchell , 200 Ariz. 523 , ¶ 13, 29 P.3d 870 (App. 2001). 2018See Horton v. Mitchell , 200 Ariz. 523 , ¶ 13, 29 P.3d 870 (App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 48 , 234 P.3d 611, 616 (App. 2010). 2017See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 19 , 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). ¶12 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 48 , 234 P.3d 611, 616 (App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Olquingreen2 sentences2016See State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250, 252, ¶ 10 , 165 P.3d 228, 230 (App. 2007). ¶14 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 48, ¶ 20 , 234 P.3d 611, 616 (App. 2010). 2016See State v. Olquin, 216 Ariz. 250, 252, ¶ 10 , 165 P.3d 228, 230 (App. 2007). ¶14 “Inventory searches are a well-defined community caretaking exception to the probable cause and warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 48, ¶ 20 , 234 P.3d 611, 616 (App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Township of Warrengreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vargasgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 , 63 A.3d 175, 187 (2013) (holding that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless entry into home); State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454 , 459-60 ¶ 18 (N.D.2008) (declining to extend the community caretaking exception to police entry into homes); State v. Christenson, 181 Or. 2015See, e.g., State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 , 63 A.3d 175, 187 (2013) (holding that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless entry into home); State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454 , 459-60 ¶ 18 (N.D.2008) (declining to extend the community caretaking exception to police entry into homes); State v. Christenson, 181 Or. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ronald A. Ericksongreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he | 1 | 1 |
State v. Christensongreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 , 63 A.3d 175, 187 (2013) (holding that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless entry into home); State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454 , 459-60 ¶ 18 (N.D.2008) (declining to extend the community caretaking exception to police entry into homes); State v. Christenson, 181 Or. 2015See, e.g., State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 , 63 A.3d 175, 187 (2013) (holding that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless entry into home); State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454 , 459-60 ¶ 18 (N.D.2008) (declining to extend the community caretaking exception to police entry into homes); State v. Christenson, 181 Or. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John Clifton Pichanygreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he 2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ronald Joseph Bute, United States of America v. Beverly Bute, A/K/A Beverly M. York, A/K/A Beverly M. Jensengreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he | 1 | 1 |
Payton v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he 2015See, e.g., Ray v. Township of Warren, 626 F.3d 170,177 (3d Cir.2010); United States v. Bute, 43 F.3d 531, 535 (10th Cir.1994); United States v. Erickson, 991 F.2d 529, 532 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Pichany, 687 F.2d 204, 208-09 (7th Cir.1982). ¶ 20 We agree with the Seventh Circuit that Cady “intended to confine the holding to the automobile exception and to foreclose an expansive construction of the decision allowing warrantless searches of private homes or businesses.” Pichany, 687 F.2d at 209 ; cf. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[T]he | 1 | 1 |
In Re Tiffany O.green2 sentences2010Id. at 447 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 . ¶ 14 In a context unrelated to vehicles, but involving an issue of public safety, in In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, 376, ¶ 21 , 174 P.3d 282, 288 (App.2007), this court acknowledged the existence of the police’s communi *47 ty caretaking function as an exception to a warrantless search, although we held it inapplicable under the facts of the case. 2010Id. at 447 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 . ¶ 14 In a context unrelated to vehicles, but involving an issue of public safety, in In re Tiffany O., 217 Ariz. 370, 376, ¶ 21 , 174 P.3d 282, 288 (App.2007), this court acknowledged the existence of the police’s communi *47 ty caretaking function as an exception to a warrantless search, although we held it inapplicable under the facts of the case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
South Dakota v. Opperman
green
2 sentences2015It noted that “[a]utomobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements,” and that “[t]he expectation of privacy as to automobiles is further diminished by the obviously public nature of automobile travel.” Id. at 368 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 . ¶ 19 The community caretaking exception recognized in Cady and Opperman thus is grounded in the reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles as distinct from homes. 2015It noted that “[a]utomobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements,” and that “[t]he expectation of privacy as to automobiles is further diminished by the obviously public nature of automobile travel.” Id. at 368 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 . ¶ 19 The community caretaking exception recognized in Cady and Opperman thus is grounded in the reduced expectation of privacy in automobiles as distinct from homes. | 2 | 2010–2015 |
Cady v. Dombrowski
green
2 sentences2014State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 46, ¶ 12 , 234 P.3d 611, 614 (App.2010) (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973)). 2014State v. Organ, 225 Ariz. 43, 46, ¶ 12 , 234 P.3d 611, 614 (App.2010) (citing Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 , 93 S.Ct. 2523 , 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973)). | 2 | 2010–2014 |
State v. Gill
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 , 63 A.3d 175, 187 (2013) (holding that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless entry into home); State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454 , 459-60 ¶ 18 (N.D.2008) (declining to extend the community caretaking exception to police entry into homes); State v. Christenson, 181 Or. 2015See, e.g., State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301 , 63 A.3d 175, 187 (2013) (holding that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, the community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless entry into home); State v. Gill, 755 N.W.2d 454 , 459-60 ¶ 18 (N.D.2008) (declining to extend the community caretaking exception to police entry into homes); State v. Christenson, 181 Or. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Bolt
green
2 sentences2015We have read our constitution’s more specific language as affording greater protection to privacy in the home in some circumstances, Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 264-65 , 689 P.2d at 523-24 , and for that additional reason we are disinclined to extend the scope of the community caretaking exception beyond the automobile context. 2015We have read our constitution’s more specific language as affording greater protection to privacy in the home in some circumstances, Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 264-65 , 689 P.2d at 523-24 , and for that additional reason we are disinclined to extend the scope of the community caretaking exception beyond the automobile context. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Block
green
2 sentences2010The court held that: The appropriate standard under the community caretaking exception is one of reasonableness: Given the known facts, would a prudent and reasonable officer have perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of his or her community earetaking functions? ... [A]s in other contexts, “in determining whether the officer acted reasonably, due weight must be given not to his unpartieularized suspicions or ‘hunches,’ but to the reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in the light of his experience; in other words, he must be able to point to specific and 2010The court held that: The appropriate standard under the community caretaking exception is one of reasonableness: Given the known facts, would a prudent and reasonable officer have perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of his or her community earetaking functions? ... [A]s in other contexts, “in determining whether the officer acted reasonably, due weight must be given not to his unpartieularized suspicions or ‘hunches,’ but to the reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in the light of his experience; in other words, he must be able to point to specific and | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.