Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Clevidence, 736 P.2d 379.

28 citing documents.

State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Bighorse Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, see also State v. Haggerty, 1 CA-CR 07-0086, 2008 WL 4358684, at *3, ¶¶ 10-11 (Ariz. App. Sept.
State v. Primous 372 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Primous 372 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We previously expressed approval for such a 1 But we reject it now.
State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Schweigert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(knife was a deadly weapon); -01 (App. 1987) (six-inch knife was a deadly weapon).
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“ ‘If an officer has sufficient information from which he would make an arrest and, as an incident to that arrest, makes a lawful search, the search is not unreasonable if made before instead of after the arrest.’”
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(“If an officer has sufficient information from which he would make an arrest and, as an incident to that arrest, makes a lawful search, the search is not unreasonable if made before instead of after the arrest.”).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT30243 920 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JT30243 920 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
1069 , 62 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980)
State v. Blackmore 904 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Blackmore 904 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Whether an investigative detention has transformed into a de facto arrest “turns upon an evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would reasonably believe that he was being arrested.” , , (whether a person is under arrest depends on the “particular circumstances” surrounding the detention); Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 , 88 S.Ct.
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. J-103621-01 891 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Matter of Appeal Pima Cty. Juv. Delinq. 891 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Matter of Appeal Pima Cty. Juv. Delinq. 891 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. J-103621-01 891 P.2d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
eapons that might be used to harm the officer or others; it does not permit an officer to undertake a “fishing expedition.” , “[w]e are aware of no instance in which the Supreme Court has condoned the use of a ‘frisk’ to search for evidence of an independent crime.”
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Romero 870 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
at 1329 ; Winegar, 147 Ariz. at 447 n. 5, 711 P.2d at 586 n. 5; , overruled on other grounds
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Oliver 821 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Vasquez 796 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Vasquez 796 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Bedoni 779 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989