Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sweeney, 227 P.3d 868.

80 citing documents.

State v. Ribble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ribble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (2017); ¶ 21 (App. 2010); ¶ 25 (App. 2007).
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
When an officer lacks probable cause, “duration is an essential element in determining whether the initially lawful intrusion takes on the characteristics of an unlawful detention.” ¶ 17 (App. 2010).
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
the encounter between the driver and the officer becomes consensual.’ ”)
State v. Paul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Paul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 12 (App. 2010); ¶ 2 (App. 2015).
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶12 Culver’s is misplaced.
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(traffic stop “‘must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop’”), quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983).
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Dwyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First, “an officer needs only reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred to initiate a stop.” ¶ 16 (App. 2010) (citing Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326 (2009)).
State v. Condiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Condiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 17 (App. 2010) (Brown, J., specially concurring).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
because they may cast too wide a net and subject all travelers to ‘virtually random seizures.’” , quoting Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441 , 100 S.Ct.
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 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
P.3d 868 (App. 2010), to support her argument that the investigatory detention was an unlawful second seizure, Sweeney is not applicable here.
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 of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
An investigatory stop cannot last “‘longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.’” quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983).