Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Tellez, 431 P.2d 691.

42 citing documents.

State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Foster Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Additionally, Foster’s cited cases, are inapplicable to this case because they address Miranda in the context of a traffic stop.
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Kennedy, 116 Ariz. at 569 , 570 P.2d at 511 ( , ).
In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(officer’s questioning of motorist who had been weaving in traffic was not custodial interrogation requiring prior Miranda warnings, because, although defendant suspected of something due to his physical condition, officers did not yet know what crime had been committed and questioning
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Pettit 979 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
State v. Morse 617 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1980
*29 Similarly, although Arizona courts have recognized that the time of formal arrest is an inadequate guideline as to when Miranda warnings must be given, , existence of probable cause to arrest for a crime does not in and of itself require their administration.
State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
State v. Jones 610 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1980
State v. Kennedy 570 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Kennedy 570 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
In support of this proposition they cite the following cases:
State v. Ware 557 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Ware 557 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
State v. Landrum 544 P.2d 664 Ariz. 1976
State v. Hocker 541 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Hocker 541 P.2d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Vitale 530 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Mumbaugh 491 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1971
State v. Mumbaugh 491 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1971
this Court said: “ , the warning must be given when the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, and also reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is the one who committed it.
State v. Vaughn 471 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Vaughn 471 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
the warning must be given when the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, and also reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is the one who committed it.
State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Butler 450 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Franklin v. Eyman, 3 Ariz.App.
State v. Hunt 447 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Hunt 447 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
: “* * * we believe that the point where the warning must be given is when * * * [the police have both reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant is the one who committed it], for from that point forward the police can be expected to pursue the c
State v. Grijalva 445 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Grijalva 445 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Perez 442 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Perez 442 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
this court: “[In Miranda and Escobedo] in which the rules on constitutional rights are developed, the crime was known, but the culprit was indistinct.
State v. Reynolds 436 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Reynolds 436 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Noriega 433 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Noriega 433 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967