Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite MacK v. Cruikshank, 2 P.3d 100.

72 citing documents.

State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Kuzmanov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
has never required and still does not require police to inform DUI suspects of their right to procure an independent blood alcohol test when implied consent has been invoked.” Norris, 179 Ariz. at 345- 46, 878 P.2d at 1383-84 (emphasis added) (recognizing Montano as “exception to the general rule [that] has been consistently limited to its facts in subsequent cases”); ¶ 14
Savord v. Morton 330 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Savord v. Morton 330 P.3d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We review due process claims de novo.” ¶ 6
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“Although a DUI suspect does not have a „right‟ to refuse to submit to a test, he or she does have the „physical power‟ to refuse.”).
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Erica Lea Daughters-White, Sean Aaron Johnson, John Clifton Livingston ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Cf. Mack v. Cruikshank, 196 Ariz. 541, ¶ 12, (“due process requires that the state ensure that the tests it demands .
In re MH 2006-002044 170 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-002044 170 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
3 (same standard applies in reviewing denial of motion to suppress).
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Guthrie, 202 Ariz. at 274, ¶ 4 , 43 P.3d at 602 ; ¶ 1
State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Olcan 61 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. O'DELL 46 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Van Herreweghe v. Burke 36 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
A defendant must be given only a “reasonable opportunity,” , or a “fair chance,” , to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence.
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000