DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pina, 383 P.2d 167.

48 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
  • State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
    (noting that the Private Affairs Clause “was adopted for the purpose of preserving the rights which the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was intended to protect”)
  • Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), which held that a blood draw did not violate the Fourth Amendment when taken based on exigent circumstances and as a search incident to arrest, and State v. Berg , , overruled on other grounds by State v. Pina , , its own opinion which had upheld forcibly-administered breath tests.
  • State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Peltz 391 P.3d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    nces in which “it is intended that the communication be private and confidential.” -40 , -27 (1988) (“The presence of third parties can eliminate the confidential character of the [communication] and destroy the privilege.”)
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Francisco Navarro 382 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Javier Francisco Navarro 382 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Criticized State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    11 (article II, § 8 “was adopted for the purpose of preserving the rights which the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was intended to protect”), P.2d 617 (1952).
  • State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    ¶ 21 Further, , , does not compel a conclusion that force cannot be used to draw blood.
  • State v. Turney 655 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Yuma County Attorney v. McGuire 532 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1975
  • Yuma County Attorney v. McGuire 532 P.2d 157 Ariz. 1975
    e simple issue as stated by the petitioner and concurred in by respondents is: “May a spouse give consent to the search of their home when each spouse exercises control and dominion over the house ánd the other spouse is not present but is a suspect to a crime.”
  • State v. Edgin 520 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Edgin 520 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1974
    overruled on *419 other grounds
  • State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    the defendants appealed their convictions of having violated Ch. 85, Session Laws 1945 (§ 73-1607a, Cum.
  • State v. Purse 496 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Purse 496 P.2d 600 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
    is the law in Arizona and prohibits one person from waiving another’s constitutional rights.
  • Lewin v. Jackson 492 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1972
  • Lewin v. Jackson 492 P.2d 406 Ariz. 1972
    “For information acquired by a physician to be privileged [under the Arizona statutes] it must have been acquired under circumstances from which it appears that the examination was intended to be privileged.” at 63 , at 416 (1954), , Udall, supra, § 93, at p. 145.
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Chudy 492 P.2d 402 Ariz. 1972
    1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 .(1961); , 383 P.2d.
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
  • Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
    This court, , overruled on other grounds; , has taken the position that the results of a drunkometer test are admissible in evidence even though the specimen of breath used in the test was forcibly taken from the defendant over his objection.
  • State v. Bustamante 462 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Bustamante 462 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Navallez 457 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Navallez 457 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    State v. Taylor, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Curtis 455 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
  • State v. Curtis 455 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
    State v. Taylor, 3 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • State v. Allen 450 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 (1961)
  • State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Sanders 420 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1966
    overruled on other grounds, , .
  • State v. Stokes 410 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
  • State v. Stokes 410 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
    There was no attempt by a third person to waive any of the defendant’s , does not apply.
  • State v. Kinderman 136 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1965
  • State v. Hankey 402 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Hankey 402 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Sherrick 402 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Kananen 399 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Kananen 399 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1965
    We are of opinion that the better rule is that a pretrial motion to exclude is not necessary.” This is a federal question, and as we pointed out in State v. Piña, , ; 168: “The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the Federal Constitution are the law of the land applicable to all alike.” In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct.
  • State v. Baca 398 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Baca 398 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct.