6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2018Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009); see also State v. Starr, 222 Ariz. 65, 69, ¶ 12 (App. 2009) (finding that reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify a traffic stop); A.R.S. § 28-1594 (providing that officers "may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected [traffic] violation"). ¶11 Because Dennis does not challenge the basis for the traffic stop, he cannot complain of his detention. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Starrgreen1 sentence2018Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009); see also State v. Starr, 222 Ariz. 65, 69, ¶ 12 (App. 2009) (finding that reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify a traffic stop); A.R.S. § 28-1594 (providing that officers "may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected [traffic] violation"). ¶11 Because Dennis does not challenge the basis for the traffic stop, he cannot complain of his detention. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarezgreen1 sentence2017State v. Nevarez, 235 Ariz. 129, 133, ¶ 7 (App. 2014). ¶9 As relevant here, A.R.S. § 28-925(C) requires that a lamp “be constructed and placed in a manner that illuminates with a white light the rear license plate and renders it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear.” Further, under A.R.S. § 28-1594, police may stop and detain a 3 STATE v. WITZIG Decision of the Court person when reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected traffic violation. ¶10 The facts presented at the suppression hearing support the conclusion that Officer Holstrom had at least reasonable | 1 | 1 |
State v. Acostagreen2 sentences2014And because the suspected traffic violation was sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Moreno was a passenger, see State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 257 , 801 P.2d 489, 492 (App.1990), we need not determine whether other factors relied upon by Detective Barco and considered by the trial court also supported reasonable suspicion. 2014And because the suspected traffic violation was sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Moreno was a passenger, see State v. Acosta, 166 Ariz. 254, 257 , 801 P.2d 489, 492 (App.1990), we need not determine whether other factors relied upon by Detective Barco and considered by the trial court also supported reasonable suspicion. | 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 v. Box
green
1 sentence2016The court in Box construed two statutes, A.R.S. §§ 28-1594 and 13-3883, to suggest that officers are permitted "to stop a vehicle and detain the driver for an actual or suspected traffic violation not committed in that officer’s presence but observed and reported by another officer.” Id. ¶¶ 8-12, 73 P.3d at 626-27 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Tarango
green
2 sentences2003Thus, construing the two statutes in harmony, as we must attempt to do, see State v. Tarango, 185 Ariz. 208 , 914 P.2d 1300 (1996), we conclude that § 28-1594 permits an officer to stop a vehicle and detain the driver for an actual or suspected traffic violation not committed in that officer’s presence but observed and reported by another officer. 2003Thus, construing the two statutes in harmony, as we must attempt to do, see State v. Tarango, 185 Ariz. 208 , 914 P.2d 1300 (1996), we conclude that § 28-1594 permits an officer to stop a vehicle and detain the driver for an actual or suspected traffic violation not committed in that officer’s presence but observed and reported by another officer. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Petersen v. City of Mesa
green
2 sentences2003Petersen v. City of Mesa, 204 Ariz. 278 , 63 P.3d 309 (App. 2003). 5 law.”2 The state argues that Baxley’s stop was authorized by § 28-1594, which provides: “A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of this title and to serve a copy of the traffic complaint for an alleged civil or criminal violation of this title.” This statute has no requirement that the suspected traffic violation occur in the officer’s presence. 2003Petersen v. City of Mesa, 204 Ariz. 278 , 63 P.3d 309 (App. 2003). 5 law.”2 The state argues that Baxley’s stop was authorized by § 28-1594, which provides: “A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency may stop and detain a person as is reasonably necessary to investigate an actual or suspected violation of this title and to serve a copy of the traffic complaint for an alleged civil or criminal violation of this title.” This statute has no requirement that the suspected traffic violation occur in the officer’s presence. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.