Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Kelly, 407 P.2d 95.
- State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Johnson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, (recognizing privilege in regards to information concerning confidential informants); (same).
- State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
- State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Hadd 619 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
- State v. Warren 589 P.2d 1338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
-
State v. Warren
589 P.2d 1338
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
A presumption exists in favor of the validity of the warrant, , and the defendant has the burden of proving that it was not valid.
- Resnick v. State 540 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- Resnick v. State 540 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
- State v. Snodgrass 507 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
-
State v. Snodgrass
507 P.2d 1003
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
our Supreme Court passed upon many of the same questions involving a warrant issued to search a described house and a certain “Fiat” *395 automobile, no mention being made of the insufficiency of the car’s description.
- State v. Jung 506 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
-
State v. Jung
506 P.2d 648
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
a like contention was advanced and rejected by our Arizona Supreme Court: “The contention that the affidavit is insufficient in regard to the date the information was received from the informant, and in regard to the date the informer obtained his information, is not well founded.
- State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Endreson 506 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
- State v. Adams 501 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State v. Adams 501 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
- State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Wren 498 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1972
-
State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Wren
498 P.2d 444
Ariz. 1972
State v. Snyder, 12 Ariz.App.
- State v. Martinez 489 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Martinez 489 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
- State v. Godwin 475 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1970
- State v. Godwin 475 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1970
- State v. James 459 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- State v. James 459 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
- State v. Tisnado 458 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Tisnado 458 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Watling 453 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Watling
453 P.2d 500
Ariz. 1969
825 , 11 L.Ed.2d 887 ; , ; United States v. Thoresen, 281 F.Supp.
- State v. Harris 451 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
State v. Harris
451 P.2d 646
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
where the Supreme Court held that if drugs were found in defendant’s apartment under a valid search warrant it was sufficient evidence for the jury to decide whether defendant knew of the presence of the drugs.
- 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
- State v. Crowder 440 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Crowder 440 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Van Meter 440 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
-
State v. Van Meter
440 P.2d 58
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
stated that “there is a presumption in favor of the validity of a search warrant.” 99 Ariz. at 140 , 407 P.2d at 97 .
- Rivera v. Superior Court 430 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
- Rivera v. Superior Court 430 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
- State v. McMann 412 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- State v. McMann 412 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966