Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Cada, 562 P.2d 390.

49 citing documents.

State v. Stempel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Consistent with that right, the State “may not unreasonably interfere with an accused’s reasonable attempts to secure, at his own expense, a blood or other scientific 10 STATE v. STEMPEL Decision of the Court test.”
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
To protect these rights, police officers conducting a DUI investigation “may not unreasonably interfere with an accused’s reasonable attempts to secure, at his own expense, a blood or other scientific test for the purpose of attempting to establish evidence of his sobriety at or near the crucial time under consideration.” see also A.R.S.
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Police officers are not required to take the initiative or even assist in procuring any evidence on behalf of a defendant.” ¶ 14, ( ).
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Accordingly, the state “may not unreasonably interfere with an accused’s reasonable attempts to secure, at his own expense, a blood or other scientific test for the purpose of attempting to establish evidence of his sobriety at or near the crucial time under consideration.”
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
discuss the right to counsel as a Sixth Amendment right even at the investigatory stage, 3 here the police indisputably met their obligations regarding the DUI suspect’s right to counsel as proscribed in those eases.
State v. Storholm 109 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Storholm 109 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
Moody further urges that the State “may not unreasonably interfere with an accused’s reasonable attempts to secure, at his own expense, a blood or other scientific test.”
State v. Larivee 656 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2003
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(discussing constitutional due process right); see also A.R.S.
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
MacK v. Cruikshank 2 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Although it is a constitutional due process right, , it is codified in former § 28-692(H), now § 28-1381(M), which was adopted at the same time as the implied consent law.
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Martinez v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Martinez v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
both of which deal with a defendant’s attempts to secure exculpatory evidence, in support of his argument that the police must not frustrate reasonable efforts to establish meaningful communication.
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
State v. Crotty 731 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Crotty 731 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
See, , (dismissal of DWI case with prejudice appropriate where state prevented defendant from obtaining independent blood test); , (right to obtain independent test based upon constitutional principles).
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Leonard 725 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
(quoting In re Martin, 58 Cal.2d 509 , 24 Cal.Rptr.
State v. Klein 708 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Klein 708 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
this court specifically found that a refusal to release a person on bail who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, and who had declined to take *81 the breath test, was a denial of due process because dete
Amos v. Bowen 693 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Amos v. Bowen 693 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
State v. McLoughlin 679 P.2d 504 Ariz. 1984
and relied on by this Court in McNutt , "the Fourteenth Amendment's `fair play' doctrine requires that when one charged with a criminal offense of which a physical condition or state of the accused is an element, and when such physical condition or state is subject to change with the passag
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 648 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1982
McNutt v. Superior Court of State of Ariz. 648 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1982
State v. Jefferson 615 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1980
State v. Jefferson 615 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1980
that an accused has the right to have independent tests and that the interference with the right to obtain evidence, lost through the passage of time, is analogous to the suppression of evidence and violative of due process.
State v. Cantu 569 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Cantu 569 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
(Review Denied April 5, 1977); , (Review Denied April 5, 1977).
Smith v. Ganske 562 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Smith v. Ganske 562 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
This is a , filed this date, that is, does the interference with reasonable efforts to secure independent evidence of sobriety in a drunk driving case deprive the accused of his right to a fair trial?