Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Paredes, 810 P.2d 607.

50 citing documents.

State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, (“[C]onsent to ‘take a look in the vehicle’ does not encompass the further intrusion of ‘tearing a car apart’ by removing the door panels.”); (“The scope of a consensual search is limited to the scope of the consent given.”); ¶ 26 (App. 1999) (same).
State v. Bueno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bueno Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“The scope of a consensual search is limited to the scope of the consent given.”
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
("The scope of a consensual search is limited to the scope of the consent given.").
State v. Brixey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Brixey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶14 “Determining the validity of a law enforcement officer’s search based on consent generally involves two factors: (1) whether the consent was voluntarily given and (2) whether the search was within the scope of the consent.” ¶ 8 (App. 2016) (–13 (App. 1991)).
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct. at 1615.
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(affirming trial court where "[o]ur search of the record, however, does not indicate any basis for believing that the defendant's consent was other than voluntary").
State v. Gamble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Gamble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
("A warrantless search is valid if conducted after voluntary consent is given.").
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ramos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
5 STATE v. RAMOS Decision of the Court voluntary consent is given.” (citation omitted).
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶10 “The voluntariness of a defendant’s consent to search is a question of fact determined from the totality of circumstances.”
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Meza-Contreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene Becerra 366 P.3d 567 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Silva Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 17 , , however, the state claims the officers were permitted to detain Kinney, even after ascertaining he was not Balentine, “in order to conduct a records cheek.” The state argues that Kinney’s statement to Leikem was not derived from a
Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Carrillo v. Houser 214 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000) (dog sniff of exterior of car at drug checkpoint not a search); P.2d 607 (1991) (dog sniff of exterior of car subsequent to valid traffic stop does not constitute search); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983); State v. Morrow, 128 Ariz. 309
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Flores 986 P.2d 232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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. Acinelli 952 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Acinelli 952 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
State v. McKinney 917 P.2d 1214 Ariz. 1996
1058 , 122 L.Ed.2d 364 (1993)