Cited by

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

203 citing documents.

State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶6 (2015); ¶11 (2012); ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-24, ¶¶ 25-26, -73 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Evans 349 P.3d 205 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans Ariz. 2015
¶15 Evans observes that two Arizona cases― ¶ 22, ¶ 25, ―have cited with approval Foreman’s “serve to eliminate” language, 369 F.3d at 781.
State v. Evans 349 P.3d 205 Ariz. 2015
¶ 15 Evans observes that two Arizona cases — , 113 ¶ 22, , 24 ¶ 25, — have cited with approval Foreman’s “serve to eliminate” language, 369 F.3d at 781 .
State v. Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984) (“[P]olice questioning, by itself, is unlikely to result in a Fourth Amendment violation.”); Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 35-36 (1996) (officer conducting traffic stop may ask driver questions and seek permission to search); ¶ 23, (officer may ask questions unrelated to traffic stop); (search is not inherently non-consensual simply because officer asks permission to conduct it).
State v. Woods 342 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Woods 342 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); ¶ 19
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno 340 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno 340 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans 332 P.3d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans 332 P.3d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Mucciarone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 19, (stating that “we defer to the trial court’s factual findings, including findings on credibility and the reasonableness of the inferences drawn by the officer”).
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DISCUSSION I. Motion to Suppress ¶5 “In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we 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
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶5 When reviewing a decision on a suppression motion, “we defer to the trial court’s factual findings, including findings on credibility and the reasonableness of the inferences drawn by the officer.”
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra 291 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Guillermo C. Becerra 291 P.3d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶5 “An investigatory stop of a vehicle constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment,” and is permissible only if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, -72 (App. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 280 P.3d 1239 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 280 P.3d 1239 Ariz. 2012
Although an extended detention might be reasonable under Terry while 8 officers await specialized equipment such as a drug sniffing dog, see, -27 ¶¶ 33-37, -76 (App. 2007) (concluding one hour and forty minute detention to wait for drug sniffing dog reasonable), such concerns do not justify the continued detention here.
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Ahumada 241 P.3d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Ahumada 241 P.3d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“[B]ut we review de novo mixed questions of law and fact and the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusions as to whether the totality of the circumstances warranted an investigative detention and whether its duration was reasonable.”
State v. Hummons 236 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Hummons 236 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Factual and Procedural Background ¶ 2 “In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we 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.”
State v. Sweeney 227 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Sweeney 227 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Tillmon 216 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Tillmon 216 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“A jury may prdperly infer that a driver and sole occupant of a vehicle containing a large amount of drags was aware that the drugs were in the vehicle.” , *457 ¶ 44, (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
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