Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pederson, 424 P.2d 810.

80 citing documents.

State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See State v. Pederson , , 65, , 815 (1967) (probable cause for arrest does not require officer to "personally verify every bit of information").
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
¶ 13 When mistakes are made, “ ‘the mistakes must be those of reasonable [people], acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability.’” , quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 , 69 S.Ct.
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
State v. Romanosky 859 P.2d 741 Ariz. 1993
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hansen v. Garcia, Fletcher, Lund and McVean 713 P.2d 1263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); , State v. Vaughn, supra; State v. Klinker, 85 Wash.2d 509
State v. Turner 688 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Turner 688 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Vaughn, 12 Ariz.App.
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. McGuire 601 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. McGuire 601 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
Cullison v. City of Peoria 584 P.2d 1156 Ariz. 1978
1623, 1630 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726, 739 (1963)
State v. Lewis 566 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1977
State v. Lewis 566 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1977
1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); , , cert.
State v. Price 558 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Price 558 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963)
State v. Quatsling 536 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Quatsling 536 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
However, Arizona courts have consistently held that the “unexplained possession of recently stolen goods is a circumstance from which a jury might infer a defendant’s guilt when supported by the slightest corroborative evidence.” , State v. Miguel, 15 Ariz.App.
State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
State v. Keener 520 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1974
The defense suggests that hearsay testimony could not be considered in deciding the issues presented by motion to suppress, , and McCray v. ( Illinois, supra.
State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
Appellant argues that in this situation the arresting officer must have more than mere knowledge of the warrant in order to make the arrest valid and relies upon State v. Williams, supra, , cert.
State v. Richards 518 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1974
State v. Richards 518 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1974
*292 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963)
State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
State v. Scarborough 514 P.2d 997 Ariz. 1973
As we read the subject instruction, it appears to state the law correctly for in effect the instruction says that if defendants had wished to remove the effect of *5 possession of stolen goods from the facts and circumstances to be considered by the jury, defendants should have offered some explanation of their possession of such goods.”
State v. Lockner 513 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Lockner 513 P.2d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
and United States v. Simon, [U.S.Ct.
State v. Rendel 509 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Rendel 509 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Hutton 505 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Hutton 505 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
223, 225 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142, 145 (1964); , ; , , cert.
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Haynie 505 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
State v. Miller 497 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1972
and the Arizona cases, , , , , , reh.
State v. Phillips 492 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Phillips 492 P.2d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Miguel 485 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Miguel 485 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Payne, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. McGuire 479 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. McGuire 479 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
If the arrest is for a misdemeanor, the arrest shall be made immediately or on fresh pursuit.” , , : “ * * * The existence of probable cause is determined by application of an objective rather than a subjective standard.
State v. Enriquez 475 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1970
State v. Enriquez 475 P.2d 486 Ariz. 1970
1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); , , cert.
State v. Vaughn 471 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Vaughn 471 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Probable cause is something less than proof needed to convict and something more than a raw unsupported suspicion.