Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d 171.

57 citing documents.

Newell v. Town of Oro Valley 789 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
holding that an officer who has made a valid investigatory stop of a suspected drunk driver is entitled to conduct field sobriety tests and that such tests do not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Lopresti 787 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Lopresti 787 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The court noted, however, that State v. Superior Court (Blake), , precluded the state from introducing any evidence that would “quantify” the defendant’s blood alcohol content.
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Ricke 778 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Ricke 778 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
DISCUSSION The question of whether a horizontal gaze nystagmus test result may be admitted at trial has been exhaustively discussed by our supreme court in State v. Superior Court In and For Cochise County (Blake)
State v. Superior Court of Arizona 742 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Superior Court of Arizona 742 P.2d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
the supreme court rejected the contention that probable cause to arrest was required before an officer could conduct field sobriety tests.