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. Taras, 504 P.2d 548.

30 citing documents.

  • State v. Branham 952 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Branham 952 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
    421, 424-25 , -64 (1972); , (evidence of marijuana found during lawful search of vehicle for registration card admissible).
  • State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    the defendant attempted to elude the police.
  • State v. Clevidence 736 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Clevidence 736 P.2d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • English-Clark v. City of Tucson 690 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)
  • State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Villagrana 564 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Gutierrez 553 P.2d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Gutierrez 553 P.2d 1211 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
    8 , 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 activity, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime.” , we applied the Baltier test to a situation involving the forced stopping of vehicles.
  • State v. Ochoa 544 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Ochoa 544 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1976
    The Court of Appeals of this State, , in arriving at the same conclusion at which we have arrived, quoted with approval from Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1966), language which we think is worth requoting: “ * * * due regard for the practical necessities of effective law enforcement requires that the validity of brie
  • State v. Dean 543 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Dean 543 P.2d 425 Ariz. 1975
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ; , State v. Ream, 19 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Ochoa 534 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
  • State v. Ochoa 534 P.2d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
    In contrast, , that: “ ‘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.
  • 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
    See also, , and State v. Baltier, 17 Ariz.App.
  • 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
    For other Arizona cases upholding a search and seizure situation, see: State v. Smith, 110 Ariz. -, , Filed December 21, 1973; , , , State v. Baltier, 17 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Ream 505 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • State v. Ream 505 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973