Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Valle, 996 P.2d 125.

52 citing documents.

State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
We review de novo the superior court’s conclusions regarding whether a search “complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gaspar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We review de novo whether a search “complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Dazen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Dazen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
We review de novo the superior court’s legal determination of whether a search complies with the Fourth Amendment, ¶ 6 (App. 2000), and will uphold the suppression ruling “if legally correct for any reason supported by the record.” Moreno, 236 Ariz. at 350, ¶ 5.
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Soliven Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶8 When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we “defer to the trial court’s factual findings absent an abuse of discretion,” but review de novo the trial court’s “ultimate legal determination that the search complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
DISCUSSION I. Motion to Suppress ¶7 When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we “defer to the [superior] court’s factual findings absent an abuse of discretion,” but “review de novo [] the [superior] court’s ultimate legal determination that the search complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Alarcon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Alarcon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We review de novo, however, the superior court’s legal determination whether a search “complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Keeten Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 2 n.1 (App. 2010); ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. McCoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. McCoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶12 We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (2016), but review de novo the superior court’s ultimate legal conclusion that a search and seizure “complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment,” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
We review de novo, however, the superior court’s ultimate legal conclusion that a search and seizure “complied with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 6 (App. 2000).
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 6 (App. 2000) (citations omitted).
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. MacIel 358 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Posey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Orozco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Orozco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶4 “Probable cause to arrest without a warrant exists if the arresting officer possesses information sufficient to justify a reasonable and prudent person in believing that a felony has been committed by the individual arrested.” ¶ 21, (citation omitted).
State v. Serna 307 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Serna 307 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
When reviewing a trial court‟s 2 denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the court‟s factual findings absent an abuse of discretion, but when an issue involves the interpretation of a statute, we review that issue de novo
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
See, e.g., United States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009, 1014-15 (9th Cir.2001) (officer’s manipulation of box in suspect’s pocket exceeded scope of Terry pat-down when object “could not possibly be a weapon”); , (search of pocket exceeded scope of Terry frisk when officer testified he had not believed object was weapon); Davis v. State, 829 S.W.2d 218, 219, 221 (Tex.Crim.App.
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
citing Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 (1996).
In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Watkins 88 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Watkins 88 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress, but review de novo the trial court’s ultimate legal determination that the search complied with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ¶ 6
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