DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Waicelunas, 672 P.2d 968.

25 citing documents.

  • Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Ricard v. Arizona Department of Transportation 931 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Cole 838 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Cole 838 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
  • State v. Dawson 792 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1990
    See, , (court had no jurisdiction to entertain discovery error alleged in state’s appeal).
  • State v. Brita 744 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Brita 744 P.2d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    On November 13, 1985, , in which this court held that an arrest was required prior to the taking of a blood sample.
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
    United States v. Beck, 598 F.2d 497 (9th Cir.1979).
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
  • Montano v. Superior Court Pima County 719 P.2d 271 Ariz. 1986
    The “spirit and reason” of the implied consent statute “is to remove drunk drivers from the state’s highways, not to provide a shield for a drunk driver____”
  • State v. Travis 721 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Travis 721 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Winegar 711 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1985
    United States v. Beck, supra
  • State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Cocio 709 P.2d 1336 Ariz. 1985
    the Court of Appeals held that a blood sample could not be taken without a warrant prior to arrest of a person suspected of driving while intoxicated.
  • Buffa v. Scott 708 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Buffa v. Scott 708 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Salazar 707 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Salazar 707 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    art, “Notwithstanding any other 1 provision of law to the contrary, if a law enforce *551 ment officer has probable cause to believe that a person has violated this section 2 and a blood sample is taken from that person for any reason a portion of that sample shall be provided to a law enforcement officer if requested for law enforcement purposes.” The appellant’s , is misplaced since it was decided before the enactment of the statute.