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. Ramos, 463 P.2d 91.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Albert 565 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Albert 565 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Mahoney 542 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Mahoney 542 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    We have held that a detention of 11 hours did not violate the statutory mandates of “without unnecessary delay.”
  • State v. Archer 534 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Archer 534 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Vandeveer 533 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. O'BRIEN 528 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. O'BRIEN 528 P.2d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    we held that when an affidavit indicates that the informant was an eyewitness to the actual crime, the two-pronged test for evaluating the existence of probable cause is met.
  • State v. Robertson 526 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Robertson 526 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    we held that when an affidavit indicates that the informant was an eyewitness to the actual crime, the two-pronged test for evaluating the existence of probable cause is met.
  • State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Cox 522 P.2d 29 Ariz. 1974
    And, as further clarified in Spinelli, supra, the magistrate must generally assure himself that the information is not merely based upon casual rumor or the individual’s general reputation.’ , ”
  • State v. Kasold 521 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Kasold 521 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1974
    584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 ], supra, the magistrate must generally assure himself that the information is not merely based upon casual rumor or the individual’s general reputation.”
  • State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Michael 483 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. White 475 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Castro 475 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Castro 475 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct.
  • State v. White 475 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    we held that when an affidavit indicates that the informant was an eyewitness to the actual crime, the two-pronged test for evaluating the existence of probable cause is met.
  • State v. Simon 470 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Simon 470 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969)
  • State v. Snyder 468 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
  • State v. Snyder 468 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
    we said: “The United States Supreme Court has laid down a two-pronged test for ■evaluating whether or not probable cause ■exists to issue a warrant.