DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Boulet v. State, 511 P.2d 168.

22 citing documents.

  • State v. Lowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See In re One 1965 Econoline, (holding that an inventory search of a vehicle for items in plain view and within a satchel was reasonable).
  • State v. McNeill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Moreover, we note that a finding of good faith does not require an officer’s intentions to be “simplistically pure.” In re One 1965 Econoline
  • Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See, e.g., In re One 1965 Econoline, -36 , -71 (1973) (Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches).
  • State v. Organ 234 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    No. E16JH70204.3, , (holding that subjective motives of police need not be “simplistically pure”; rather, the inquiry is whether the inventory search was reasonable under objective standards).
  • State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
    We have said previously that “[wjhat makes an inventory search reasonable under the requirements of the Fourth Amendment is not that the subjective motives of the police are simplistieally pure, but whether the facts of the situation indicate that an inventory search is reasonable under the circumstances.” In re One 1965 Econoline, etc., , State v. Johnson, 23 Ariz.App.
  • Matter of One 1969 Chev. 2-Door, Etc. 591 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Our supreme court, however, in upholding the seizure of the contents of a closed shaving satchel, has said that “[i]f one of the reasons for conducting the inventory is to safeguard valuables which might be present, it is illogical to prohibit law enforcement officials from searching those areas wherein valuables are most likely to be placed.” In Re One Econoline, etc.
  • Brown v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CTY. OF MARICOPA 580 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1978
    The first essential element for conducting an inventory search is that “the law enforcement officials must have lawful custody or possession of the automobile.” In re One 1965 Econoline, Etc.
  • State v. Walker 579 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1978
    In re One 1965 Econoline, etc., , , see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct.
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    In re One 1965 Econoline
  • State v. Bradford 544 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Bradford 544 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State of Arizona v. Johnson 530 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State of Arizona v. Johnson 530 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    the Arizona Supreme Court considered the extent to which a police officer may *65 search an unattended car which appeared to have been in an accident or abandoned.
  • State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Gowans 514 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Gowans 514 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1973
    The contents were visible without the bags having to be opened or moved in any way ” *522 At the time the petition for review of the decision and opinion of the Court of Appeals was filed in this case
  • State v. Ruiz 511 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1973
  • In Re One 1965 Econoline, Etc. 511 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1973
    In the Matter of ONE 1965 ECONOLINE, I.D.
  • State v. Ruiz 511 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1973
    The *438 testimony below is clear that the police officers did not believe that the Chevrolet stationwagon was involved in the burglary.” , , that once law enforcement officials take possession and control of an automobile it is lawful to inventory the contents of the automobile and use what is found as the basis for criminal prosecution.