Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Mitchell, 323 P.3d 69.

40 citing documents.

State v. Bowman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bowman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Alarcon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Alarcon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Havatone 443 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at *5, ¶ 20 (citing State v. Mitchell , , 419, ¶ 31, , 78 (App. 2014) ).
State v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
¶ 19 (App. 2014) (finding lawful possession “sufficient to confer standing under Jones” when defendant driver “had the rights of a bailee”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 217 (Am.
State v. Weakland 418 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Weakland 418 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 34, ; cf. State v. Mitchell , , ¶ 31, ("Thus, we do not suggest that law enforcement is expected to anticipate new developments in the law.").
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
3037 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)); , 419 ¶ 31, (good-faith exception provides “meaningful deterrence because ...
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In this review, we “consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and view that evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 11
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, ¶ 29, (“[D]ecisions of the Ninth Circuit, although persuasive, are not binding on Arizona courts.”).
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jean 372 P.3d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
945 (2012), to argue that the warrantless placement of a GPS to monitor an individual’s movements is an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment.
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
(App. 2The state raised its good-faith argument in a supplemental brief filed the day after the suppression hearing, and the trial court did not address the argument in its order.
State v. Puleo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Puleo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The denial of a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2014), and we review the trial court’s denial based solely on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing
State v. Cifuno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Cifuno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 17, (finding the defendant has standing to challenge search of a vehicle if he has lawful possession of it).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶12 To determine whether the good-faith exception applies, “courts generally agree that the authority must be binding in the jurisdiction where the police conduct occurred.”
State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sammons v. Keaggy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Followed State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶19 To determine whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, ¶ 31 (App. 2014).
Sammons v. Keaggy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
This Court reviews a valuation determination for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11, (“[W]e defer to the trial court’s factual determinations .