Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reyna, 71 P.3d 366.

24 citing documents.

State v. Dudley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 1 (App. 2003) (explaining the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement).
State v. Bowman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bowman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Last, because the automobile exception permits police to lawfully enter a vehicle without a warrant if probable cause exists to believe that the vehicle contains contraband, see, ¶ 5 (App. 2003) (automobile exception applying to vehicles in a parking lot); Cheatham, 240 Ariz. at 2 ¶ 7 (marijuana odor sufficient for warrantless search under automobile exception), Officer Lewis had a lawful right to enter Bowman’s car and seize the methamphetamine bag that was in plain view, Sisco, 239 Ariz
State v. Dotson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dotson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
e Automobile Exception ¶9 The automobile exception allows law enforcement to search “a readily mobile vehicle” when “probable cause exists to believe that the 3 STATE v. DOTSON Decision of the Court vehicle contains contraband, even in the absence of exigent circumstances.” ¶¶ 1, 5 (App. 2003).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 5 (App. 2003); see also California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 391 (1985) ("Besides the element of mobility, less rigorous warrant requirements govern because the expectation of privacy with respect to one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office.") (quotation omitted).
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 15, which allows police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle lawfully in police custody if probable cause existed.
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
Gant, 556 U.S. at 343–44; Acevedo, 500 U.S. at 579–80
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985) (automobile exception to warrant requirement justified by lessened expectation of privacy in vehicle); see also Ariz. Const. art. II, § 8; ¶ 5
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
12 general effect and purpose as the Fourth Amendment, and, for that reason, decisions on the right of search under the latter are well in point.” 246 P. 548, 548-49 (1926); & n.5, -70 & n.5 (App. 2003) (“[W]e do not read the court’s decisions concerning home searches as evidencing a state-law departure from Fourth Amendment principles governing vehicle searches.”).
State v. Allen 166 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Allen 166 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
377 n. 5, , 369 n. 5 (App.2003).