Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Weinstein, 947 P.2d 880.

31 citing documents.

State v. Zuzzio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Zuzzio Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Shwar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
If the State produces “proof from controlled settings that a dog performs reliably in detecting drugs,” Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 248 (2013), an alert by the dog outside a vehicle may provide probable cause to search the entire vehicle, -11 (App. 1997).3 ¶39 Here, the State produced evidence at the suppression hearing that Turbo was certified in narcotic detection, regularly underwent continued training, and performed well during his re-certification test less than six months before the t
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
And once Russell alerted to the presence of drugs, Deputy Watson had probable cause to search Lincourt’s vehicle, -11 (App. 1997), where he discovered the contraband leading to her arrest.
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
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
Before ultimately concluding that Martinez lacked standing, the trial court, , implicitly found no such agency relationship existed.
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005)
State v. Walker 158 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Walker 158 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
DISCUSSION ¶ 16 “We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for clear and manifest error.”
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Estrada 100 P.3d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
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
P.2d 880 (App. 1997) (when trained drug 8 detection dog alerted on outside of car, police had probable cause car contained contraband, justifying warrantless search of entire vehicle).
State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Flores 33 P.3d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
n crafting his argument, Flores has been vague about which of his various statements he believes comprises the “confession” he claims to have made when he “was immediately taken into custody and questioned regarding criminal activity without any advisement of his constitutional rights.” But the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling, , does not show that the trial court erred.
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“ ‘If an officer has sufficient information from which he would make an arrest and, as an incident to that arrest, makes a lawful search, the search is not unreasonable if made before instead of after the arrest.’”
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
We review for clear and manifest error a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, , and will uphold its ruling absent an abuse of discretion.
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. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
2558 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1076 (1996) ( , )
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00 973 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In re United States Currency in the Amount of $26,980.00 973 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998