Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Allen, 166 P.3d 111.

29 citing documents.

State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
IV; Ariz. Const. art. II, § 8; ¶ 9 (App. 2007).
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
IV, XIV; Ariz. Const. art. II, § 8; ¶ 9 (App. 2007).
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“To have a legitimate expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, a person must show both ‘an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy’ and that the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘justifiable’ under the circumstances.” ¶ 13 (App. 2007) (citing Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979)).
State v. Dennis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dennis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Laird Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Laird Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We “are not bound by the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of federal constitutional protections.” n.4, ¶ 21, n.4 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
State v. Adair 358 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Adair 358 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 24 & n.5, & n.5 (App. 2007) (citing Samson and Knights for proposition that Supreme Court “has applied a reasonableness standard in reviewing warrantless searches or seizures in a variety of circumstances”); Walker, 215 Ariz. at 94, 158 P.3d at 224 (noting, in dicta, Samson rationale “is likel
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Pamela Jacqueline Williams 343 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶17 When a violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs, “the exclusionary rule generally requires the suppression at trial of any evidence directly or indirectly gained as a result of the violation.”
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Welch 340 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
t-less intrusion into [his] computer violated the 4th and 14th Amendments” to the constitution “as well as Article II Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.” ¶ 8 The Fourth Amendment and its Arizona counterpart protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, and generally require “suppression at trial of any evidence directly or indirectly gained as a result of the violation.” , see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 23, (noting that “observations made by the police in [an area open to public use] is not an unconstitutional invasion of privacy .
State of Arizona v. Ryan Ray Olm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Ryan Ray Olm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“[w]hether a particular expectation of privacy is recognized by society as objectively reasonable is a matter of constitutional law that we consider de novo.” Thus, we review de novo whether Olm had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
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. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See, -27, ¶26 , -18 (App.2007) (rejecting challenge to search and seizure of vehicle based on lack of individualized suspicion as officer had been investigating hit-and-run offense “and possessed at least some level of individualized suspicion that [defendant’s] car might be the hit-and-run vehicle”).