Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Acosta, 801 P.2d 489.

36 citing documents.

State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Palmares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The inevitable discovery doctrine provides that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed when, in the normal course of police investigation and conduct, and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered inevitably or ultimately.”
State v. Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Law Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶13 We have previously held that “the violation of a traffic law provides sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle.”
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 28-729(1); (finding that crossing the dividing line constituted unsafe lane usage).
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
has violated a traffic law to conduct a stop of a vehicle.” ¶4 (App. 2013)
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
And because the suspected traffic violation was sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Moreno was a passenger, we need not determine whether other factors relied upon by Detective Barco and considered by the trial court also supported reasonable suspicion.
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶14 “[T]he violation of a traffic law provides sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle.” see also Box, 205 Ariz. at 497, ¶ 15, 73 P.3d at 628 (stating that traffic stop was not unreasonable seizure because it was justified by speeding); overruled on other grounds, State v.Orendain
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶ 32 “[T]he violation of a traffic law provides sufficient grounds to stop a vehicle.”
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Xavier Hipolito Estrella 286 P.3d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
He contends the driver of a borrowed vehicle has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy “regarding its contents,” -56 , -91 (App.1990) (driver had standing to challenge ear search revealing cocaine).
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Rojers 169 P.3d 651 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rojers contends, , that there is insufficient evidence of those procedures.
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See, , (officer possessed reasonable cause for stop where driver crossed "dividing line’’ as many as six times).
Pinedo v. Arizona Department of Transportation 23 P.3d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Pinedo v. Arizona Department of Transportation 23 P.3d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
State v. Branham 952 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Branham 952 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Orendain 916 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Tykwinski 824 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Tykwinski 824 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Paredes 810 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Paredes 810 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991