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. Gunter, 414 P.2d 734.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    (recognizing standard’s role in balancing “the individual interest in immunity from police interference and the community’s interest in law enforcement”).
  • State v. Keener 75 P.3d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Keener 75 P.3d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Martinez 596 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Martinez 596 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Because the events following appellant’s initial contact with the police gave rise to probable cause for a lawful arrest, , we need not address that argument.
  • State v. Heberly 587 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Heberly 587 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Hocker 556 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Hocker 556 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1976
    Although the state need not demonstrate that probable cause to arrest a suspect existed at the inception of the detention, , such a detention is within the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
  • State v. Fortier 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Fortier 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Gastelo 532 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Gastelo 532 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Ballesteros 531 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ballesteros 531 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    : “While it is often difficult to draw the line between investigation on the one hand and an arrest on the other, it will not suffice for an accused to contend that merely because investigation may lead to arrest the courts must surround investigations with the same requisites necessary for the ar
  • State v. Juarez 517 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Juarez 517 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    In that case the court laid down the guidelines that are applicable in such cases: “The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.” , the Arizona Supreme Court, in ruling on a search and seizure question, stated: “We believe a police officer acting as a reasonable man under the circumstances may detain and
  • State v. Washington 489 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Washington 489 P.2d 1201 Ariz. 1971
  • 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
    Seeber v. United States, 329 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1964); , State *138 v. McFall, , Evidence discovered under authority of a valid search warrant is admissible.
  • State v. Nixon 423 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Nixon 423 P.2d 718 Ariz. 1967
    278 ; Dugan v. State (1939), , ; Platt v. Greenwood (1937), , ; State v. Gunter (1966), , .