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. Mendoza, 454 P.2d 140.

27 citing documents.

  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
    Bates, 120 Ariz. at 563 , 587 P.2d at 749
  • State v. Cohen 957 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Cohen 957 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    -400 , -45 (1969) (“There must be substantial evidence which would cause the officers to believe that such evidence would be destroyed if their presence were announced.”); see also Bates, 120 Ariz. at 563 , 587 P.2d at 749 (requiring “substantial evidence” of exigent circumstances).
  • State v. Sanchez 627 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Sanchez 627 P.2d 676 Ariz. 1981
    While “[a]n unexpected breaking into a home by officers might well result in their being killed under the impression that the home owner was protecting his family and his home against intruders,” , violent confrontations are less likely to occur and more difficult to justify in response to unannounced breaking into fenced yards.
  • State v. Sanchez 627 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • State v. Sanchez 627 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    ‘However, unlike California, this court has not by a series of decisions engrafted a judicial exception to the statute.’ at 398 , at 143 .
  • State v. Bates 587 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Bates 587 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1978
    -400 , -45 (1969), this court emphasized that, standing by itself, the easy destructibility of narcotics evidence is insufficient to provide reasonable cause for officers to believe that announcement of the purpose of their entry would frustrate the search, and therefore, relieve them of the neces
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Cook 564 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1977
    An unexpected breaking into a home by officers might well result in their being killed under the impression that the home owner was protecting his family and his home against intruders.” at 399 , at 144 (1969).
  • State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Chagnon 564 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Gaddy 539 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Gaddy 539 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    Appellant’s , and State v. O’Donnal
  • State v. O'DONNAL 521 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. O'DONNAL 521 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Eminowicz 520 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Eminowicz 520 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Daniels 200 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1972
  • 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
    1623 , 10 L. Ed.2d 726 (1963)
  • State v. Dudgeon 477 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
  • State v. Dudgeon 477 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
    to support his position.
  • State v. Brady 469 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Brady 469 P.2d 77 Ariz. 1970
    McClure v. United States, 332 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1964) cert.