Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Swanson, 838 P.2d 1340.

34 citing documents.

State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, (“[C]onsent to ‘take a look in the vehicle’ does not encompass the further intrusion of ‘tearing a car apart’ by removing the door panels.”); (“The scope of a consensual search is limited to the scope of the consent given.”); State v. Florez, 195 Ariz.
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Blackwell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place”); (“[P]robable cause cannot rest upon mere suspicion that a crime has occurred.”).
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Curiel-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(probable cause gives an officer authority to search even areas outside the scope of the suspect’s consent).
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Alexander Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“The trial court’s factual determinations on the issue of giving consent will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.”).
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Bucholtz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
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
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-Loya 352 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
The scope of consent “is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances,” based on an objective standard of what a reasonable person would understand from the exchange between the officer and the suspect, Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991).
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Watson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“It is well established that ‘the scope of a consent search is limited by the breadth of the actual consent.’” (citation omitted).
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“Regardless of the officer’s underlying motives, a stop is not invalid if there exists a valid, objective reason to make the stop.”).
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
Hence, “a stop is not invalid if there exists a valid, objective reason to make the stop.”
State v. Ahumada 241 P.3d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Ahumada 241 P.3d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991); , 584 n. 5, , 1345 n. 5 (App.1992).
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Chief Judge CONCURRING: of luggage, inappropriate for interstate travel, justified further detention to investigate for presence of drugs); appellant was traveling on an interstate highway with a CB radio in the car, P.2d 1340 (App. 1992); and appellant suddenly broke eye contact when Baxley asked him about marijuana, see United States v. Robert L., 874 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1989).
State v. Juarez 55 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Juarez 55 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(“[C]onsent to ‘take a look in the vehicle’ does not encompass the further intrusion of ‘tearing a car apart’ by removing the door panels.”).
State v. Vera 996 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Vera 996 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(defendant conceded improper lane change, which gave officers a valid reason to detain him).
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