Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Teagle, 170 P.3d 266.

203 citing documents.

State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“The substantial evidence required to support a conviction may be direct or circumstantial.” ¶ 40 (App. 2007).
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Malloy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Malloy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
At that point, “the driver must be permitted to proceed on his way without further delay or questioning” unless: (1) the encounter becomes consensual, or (2) during the encounter, the officer develops “a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver is engaged in illegal activity.” ¶ 22 (App. 2007).
State v. Bueno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bueno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Raffaele 471 P.3d 685 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 8 (App. 2014); ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Constructive possession means the possessor either exercised dominion and control over the object or the “location in which the substance was found.” ¶ 41 (App. 2007).
State v. Hermanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hermanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Ralston-Gon Zales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 19 (App. 2007) (appellate courts defer to a superior court’s factual determinations, including credibility findings).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McCartney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. McCartney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 10 (App. 2015); ¶ 2 (App. 2007).
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Constructive possession can be established by showing that the accused exercised dominion and control over the drug itself, or the location in which the substance was found.” ¶ 41 (App. 2007).
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Burgess Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Evidence is not reweighed on appeal; this court defers to the superior court’s factual findings, “including findings on credibility and the reasonableness of the inferences drawn by the officer.” ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (citing cases).
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See Adair, 241 Ariz. at 60 ¶ 9; ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 30 (1968); -23, ¶ 20 (App. 2007).
Flynn v. Hon starr/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Flynn v. Hon starr/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶8 Although we might typically afford deference to “a trained law enforcement officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions,” ¶ 26 (App. 2007) (citing United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273-74 (2002)), such deference is not appropriate here.
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 24 (App. 2007); but see Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1614-16 (2015) (holding that a stop is unlawfully prolonged when a law enforcement officer, without reasonable suspicion, extends an otherwise-completed traffic stop beyond its mission to conduct a dog sniff).
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
– 24, ¶¶ 20–25 (App. 2007).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[W]e view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling and consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.” ¶ 2 (App. 2007).
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Castro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
court’s ultimate legal conclusions as to whether the totality of the circumstances warranted an investigative detention and whether its duration was reasonable.” ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
State V, Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State V, Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 19 (App. 2007); ¶ 10 (App. 2006).
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See State v. Evans , , ¶ 11, (to justify suspicion, officer need not rule out the possibility of innocent explanations for conduct); State v. Teagle , , ¶ 49, (reasonable suspicion is based on particularized and objective facts, not hard certainties).