Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fassler, 503 P.2d 807.

38 citing documents.

State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1 ¶10 Hayes also contends the quality and quantity of the DNA samples obtained were not sufficient, and that the samples were “degraded, contaminated, mixed-source, and low-copy-number samples.” To the contrary, the jury heard testimony that the samples were of a sufficient
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
1492 , 71 L.Ed.2d 693 (1982); Tucker, 118 Ariz. at 78 , 574 P.2d at 1297
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
State v. Walden 905 P.2d 974 Ariz. 1995
And we have stated that Miranda “does not require that the police officers notify the suspect as to the nature and seriousness of each and every crime the police may be investigating.” , (rejecting argument that Miranda warning given in traffic-violation context was insufficient to ensure the knowing and intelligent waiver of rights concerning the illegal substance violation actually being sought by the officers).
State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
State v. Loyd 616 P.2d 39 Ariz. 1980
There is no evidence that Greyhound personnel acted at the direction of the police, as police agents, or under authority of the state when they opened appellant’s trunk, , , therefore, none of appellant’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.
State v. Siqueiros 591 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Siqueiros 591 P.2d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to support the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, , , , where the disputed evidence had never been placed inside the garbage can.
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
State v. Pacheco 588 P.2d 830 Ariz. 1978
that “common carriers may search parcels entrusted to them when they have reason to believe the parcels contain contraband .
State v. Heberly 587 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Heberly 587 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. 1969 Volkswagon Bus, Vin 239199800, 1977 Wyoming License No. 2365J 586 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Barnes 575 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Barnes 575 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The record below is devoid of any such knowledge and we cannot speculate on what, , State v. Cutting, 15 Ariz.App.
State v. Randall 569 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Randall 569 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
with respect to probable cause for seizure by police after notification by airline officials.
State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
State v. Lamb 568 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1977
507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)
State v. Moody 560 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1977
State v. Moody 560 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1977
police officers obtained probable cause from initial searches by the transportation employees.
State v. Broom 557 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1976
State v. Broom 557 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1976
State v. Lippard 549 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Lippard 549 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Carroll 526 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
State v. Carroll 526 P.2d 1238 Ariz. 1974
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. Taras, 19 Ariz.App.
State v. Smith 517 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1973
State v. Smith 517 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1973
For other recent Arizona cases involving searches of containers being transported by air
State v. Fellows 511 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1973
State v. Fellows 511 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1973
State v. Taras 504 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Taras 504 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
1098 , 91 L. Ed. 1399 (1947); , ; State v. Vaughn, 12 Ariz.App.