Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wyman, 3 P.3d 392.

44 citing documents.

State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 9 (2016); ¶ 7 (App. 6 STATE v. GARCIA Decision of the Court 2000) ("Whether a person has been seized by police is a mixed question of law and fact.").
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Hernandez 399 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, “we defer to the trial court’s factual findings, but we review de novo mixed questions of law and fact and the trial court’s ultimate legal conclusion.”
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Arnold Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
check[]” revealed that Arnold “had a warrant out of Maricopa County for marijuana.” The officer placed Arnold under arrest, searched him, and found a “small crystal like substance,” as well as a “glass pipe [with] with white and black 1 “In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 2, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Holguin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. HOLGUIN Decision of the Court it clear that a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions.”); ¶ 7, (“Law enforcement officers have wide latitude to approach people and engage them in consensual conversation.” (citation omitted)); ¶ 7, (stating that police may “approach and question people without implicating the Fourth Amendment, provided that the interaction is consensual” (citations omitted)).
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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 of Arizona v. Johnathon Bernard Serna 331 P.3d 405 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Johnathon Bernard Serna 331 P.3d 405 Ariz. 2014
See id.; ¶ 12, (consensual encounter became seizure when juvenile complied with several requests from officer to return); Commonwealth v. Narcisse, 927 N.E.2d 439, 443 (Mass. 2010) (consensual stop became a Fourth Amendment seizure “once the officers told the defendant that they intended to pat
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
State v. Canales 217 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Canales 217 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); *495
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶7 , ¶ 7 , (question of whether person has been seized is a mixed question of law and fact).
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
State v. Allen 166 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Allen 166 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
In Re Ilono H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Ilono H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437, 111 S. Ct. at 2387, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 400; Rogers, 186 Ariz. at 510-11, 924 P.2d at 1029-30
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
[and consider] only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.”
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, “we defer to the trial court’s factual findings, but we review de novo mixed questions of law and fact.” ¶ 5 , (citations omitted).
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“[T]he test is whether, in light of all the circumstances, the police conduct would ‘have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.’ ” , , 395 ¶ 7 (App.2000) (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct.
State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
“[T]he test is whether, in light of all the circumstances, the police conduct would ‘have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.’” State v. Wyman, 197 Ariz. 10, 13, ¶7 (App. 2000) (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 (1988)).
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
[and consider] only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001