Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kaiser, 65 P.3d 463.

50 citing documents.

State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo, ¶ 6 (App. 2013) (citation omitted), and presume the challenged statute is constitutional, ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (citation omitted).
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Brackeen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Bridewell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bridewell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Francisco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
statute.”); -17, ¶ 4 (App. 2003); (“[Section 22-375] limit[s] this court’s review to the facial validity of [a challenged statute].
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Sibley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Meeds 421 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Earl Jefferson Causbie 384 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
There is a strong presumption that a challenged statute is not unconstitutionally vague, and it is the defendant’s burden to show otherwise, 364 5 The state argues Causbie’s vagueness challenge is not properly preserved for review.
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Burke 360 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
statute.”); -17, ¶ 4, -66 (App. 2003) (“Because this matter originated in municipal court, our jurisdiction is limited to a 1 We cite to the current versions of statutes when no changes material to this opinion have since occurred.
Foor v. Hon. smith/phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Foor v. Hon. smith/phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
But when a statute is challenged as vague, we strongly presume that it is constitutional, , 517 ¶ 8, and if possible, we “construe the statute to give it a constitutional meaning,” Poshka, 210 Ariz. at 219 ¶ 3, 109 P.3d at 114 .
Niehaus v. Huppenthal 310 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Niehaus v. Huppenthal 310 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(courts “will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the act is in conflict with the federal or state constitutions”); ¶ 8
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Moreover, “[pjeace officers may ‘take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect them personal safety and to maintain the status quo’ during an investigatory stop.” ¶ 6 , citing U.S. v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 235 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Lindner 252 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 17 Municipal ordinances are presumed constitutional, see State v. Kaiser, 204 * ¶8, and do not necessarily violate equal protection merely because they treat similarly situated classes differently.
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Childress 214 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Childress 214 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
1868 ; ¶ 6 , (noting police officers may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety during a traffic stop).
State v. Russo 196 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Russo 196 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
516 ¶ 1 n. 2, , 465 n. 2 (App.2003) (the Due Process Clauses), cert, denied, 540 U.S. 1162 , 124 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“The federal and state due process clauses contain nearly identical language and protect the same interests.”); n.2, n.2 (App. 2003).
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
"The Due Process Clause of the Arizona Constitution is construed similarly to the same clause in the United States Constitution.” , 516 n. 2 ¶ 1, , 465 n. 2 (App.2003) (citations omitted), cert.
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
His alleged conduct of “knowingly disobey[ing] the lawful order, process or mandate” of a court is neither outside the statute’s clear scope, see, , , 517 ¶ 5, cert.
State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. McDermott 93 P.3d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
516-17 ¶ 4, -66 (App.2003); , 550 ¶¶ 3, 5, see also A.R.S.
State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In reviewing those challenges to the statute, we are guided by “a strong presumption that it is constitutional.”
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In reviewing those challenges to the statute, we are guided by “a strong presumption that it is constitutional.”