DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Ganske, 562 P.2d 395.

28 citing documents.

  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Unreasonable interference occurs when police deny a suspect access to counsel, unreasonably deny a suspect bail release, State v. Ganske, 6 STATE v. WILSON Decision of the Court -17 (App. 1977) (holding that interference with Ganske’s right to obtain independent evidence was “painfully clear” because his bail effort was experiencing inordinate delay); or unreasonably delay the transportation of a defendant to a hospital to obtain independent testing.
  • 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
    Court, , (jail officials refused to honor request to telephone attorney); , (officer voluntarily undertook transport to hospital but then delayed trip by two hours); Smith v. *390 Ganske, , (jail officials told defendant’s friend prepared to make bail that defendant was not at the jail).
  • 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
    Sanchez, , , quoting *545
  • State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Sanchez 967 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    Arizona’s Due Process Clause guarantees DUI suspects “a fair chance to obtain independent evidence of sobriety essential to his defense at the only time it [is] available.” , (alteration in original) ( , ).
  • 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. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • State v. Youngblood 790 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    The Due Process clause of the Arizona Constitution guarantees to DWI suspects “a fair *65 chance to obtain independent evidence of sobriety essential to his defense at the only time it [is] available.” , (emphasis added).
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Ramos 745 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
    The Due Process clause of the Arizona Constitution guarantees to DWI suspects “a fair chance to obtain independent evidence of sobriety essential to his defense at the only time it [is] available.” , (emphasis added).
  • 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
    -17 , -97 (App.1977), police refusal to release a defendant after tender of the requisite bail amount also constituted an unreasonable interference.
  • 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 detention interfered with the defendant’s right to secure indepen
  • 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
    The court also considered the standard of “unreasonable interference” in the companion case to Cada, supra, , where Division One stated: “What then is critical is whether Ganske, under the restraint and detention evidenced here, was afforded a fair chance to obtain independent evidence of sobriety essential to his defense at the only time when it was available.” Id.
  • 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).