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. Baltier, 498 P.2d 515.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    The following test of “reasonableness” , : “There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime.” 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Doyle 571 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Doyle 571 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1977
    People v. Lawler, 9 Cal.3d 156 , 107 Cal.Rptr.
  • State v. Porter 550 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Porter 550 P.2d 253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Martinez 547 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Martinez 547 P.2d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    we set forth the test regarding forced stops for interrogation or investigative purposes: “There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activ
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State v. Bullock 546 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    that Baltier’s “action in going to abnormal extremes to avoid uniformed police officers was not only suspicious conduct but also more consistent with criminal than innocent behavior,” 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Kennel 546 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Kennel 546 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Dean 543 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Dean 543 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1975
    His action in going to abnormal extremes to avoid uniformed police officers was not only suspicious conduct but also more consistent with criminal than innocent behavior.”
  • State v. Ochoa 534 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Puig 534 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Puig 534 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
  • State v. Ochoa 534 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    [Citation omitted]’ [ ] 498 P.2d [515] at 522 We believe that the above test should apply not only to a situation such as in 1Saltier, but also to force stops of vehicles.” 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Dixon 537 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Dixon 537 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Thomas 537 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Distinguished State v. Thomas 537 P.2d 615 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    we held that for a forced investigative stop to be justified: “There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the acti
  • State v. Ballesteros 531 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ballesteros 531 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • Reed v. Roylston 524 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • Reed v. Roylston 524 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    we adopted the following test of reasonableness: “There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion that the activity is relat
  • State v. Radabaugh 522 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Radabaugh 522 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    to jus *581 tify a forced stop for interrogation or investigative purposes: “There must be a rational suspicion by the police officer that some activity out of the ordinary is or has taken place, some indication to connect the person under suspicion with the unusual activity, and some suggestion
  • State v. Mayes 515 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
  • State v. Mayes 515 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
    adopted the following test to determine whether a forced stop for interrogation or investigative purposes is “reasonable”.
  • State v. Juarez 517 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Juarez 517 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ruiz 504 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ruiz 504 P.2d 1307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
  • State v. Taras 504 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
  • State v. Taras 504 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972