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.
5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen2 sentences2018Id. ¶¶ 6-7 & n.5 ; see also Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (blood tests are physically intrusive and, unlike breath tests, do not fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the general warrant requirement); Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 , 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (blood test is a Fourth Amendment search). 2018Id. ¶¶ 6-7 & n.5 ; see also Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (blood tests are physically intrusive and, unlike breath tests, do not fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the general warrant requirement); Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 , 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (blood test is a Fourth Amendment search). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sardogreen2 sentences1992Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513 , 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975). 1992Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513 , 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2018Id. ¶¶ 6-7 & n.5 ; see also Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (blood tests are physically intrusive and, unlike breath tests, do not fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the general warrant requirement); Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 , 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (blood test is a Fourth Amendment search). 2018Id. ¶¶ 6-7 & n.5 ; see also Birchfield v. North Dakota , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 2184-85, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) (blood tests are physically intrusive and, unlike breath tests, do not fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the general warrant requirement); Schmerber v. California , 384 U.S. 757 , 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (blood test is a Fourth Amendment search). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kentucky v. King
green
2 sentences2011The State contends the probability that defendant would destroy evidence justified the police officers’ search and seizure here. ¶ 17 Unlike the trial court, we have the guidance provided by the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1854 , 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011), in which the Court considered whether the exigent circumstances exception to the general warrant requirement “applies when police, by knocking on the door of a residence and announcing their presence, cause the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence.” In King , officers att 2011The State contends the probability that defendant would destroy evidence justified the police officers’ search and seizure here. ¶ 17 Unlike the trial court, we have the guidance provided by the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1854 , 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011), in which the Court considered whether the exigent circumstances exception to the general warrant requirement “applies when police, by knocking on the door of a residence and announcing their presence, cause the occupants to attempt to destroy evidence.” In King , officers att | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences2003Id. at 768 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 . 2003Id. at 768 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chambers v. Maroney
green
2 sentences1997The United States Supreme Court indicated that, because of the particular mobility of a car, an exception to the general warrant requirement exists so long as officers have probable cause to believe there is evidence “that the officers are entitled to seize.” Id. at 48 , 90 S.Ct. at 1979 . 1997The United States Supreme Court indicated that, because of the particular mobility of a car, an exception to the general warrant requirement exists so long as officers have probable cause to believe there is evidence “that the officers are entitled to seize.” Id. at 48 , 90 S.Ct. at 1979 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Florida v. Royer
green
2 sentences1992Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 499-500 , 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324-1325 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). 1992Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 499-500 , 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324-1325 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Katz v. United States
green
2 sentences1992Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513 , 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975). 1992Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513 , 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1992Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513 , 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975). 1992Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 513 , 543 P.2d 1138, 1142 (1975). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.