Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Estrada, 100 P.3d 452.

75 citing documents.

Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 2, (“[T]he trial court, not this court, determines the credibility of the witnesses.”) ( ¶ 7, ).
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 2, (stating the issue of whether a search violated the Fourth Amendment was a legal conclusion requiring de novo review).
State v. Spencer 333 P.3d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Spencer 333 P.3d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶8 “The drawing of blood is a bodily invasion and, thus, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.” ¶ 11
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State v. Ossana, 199 Ariz. 459, ¶ 8
State v. GARCIA-NAVARRO 226 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. GARCIA-NAVARRO 226 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 6 “A wrongful search or seizure performed by a private citizen does not violate the Fourth Amendment unless the citizen is acting as an agent of the state.”
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Martinez 212 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
C., , (question of fact whether agency relationship existed); , (“Whether a private citizen acted as a state agent is determined on a case-by-case basis....”).
State v. Quinn 178 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Quinn 178 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 28-1388(E) (1999) (permitting a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe a suspect has violated the DUI statute to request a portion of that person’s blood drawn by medical personnel for a medical purpose) 1 ; -90, ¶ 9 , -55 (App.2004) (holding that probable cause is a required element for the medical blood draw exception).
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Olquin 165 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Patricia A. Barnes 159 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Patricia A. Barnes 159 P.3d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 2 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to its factual findings, , and review only what was presented during the suppression hearing
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Allen May Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, ¶ 2
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-84, -45 (1985); see also State v. Estrada, 209 Ariz. 287, ¶ 11

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by