Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Benge, 520 P.2d 843.

94 citing documents.

State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
State v. Pete J. Vanwinkle 285 P.3d 308 Ariz. 2012
See State v. Benge, 110 Ariz. 473, 477, (acknowledging usefulness of offer of proof to justify continuance).
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
6 “For constitutional purposes, there is no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding an automobile before presenting the issue of probable cause to a magistrate, and on the other hand, carrying out an immediate search without a warrant; and that given probable cause to search either course was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” , see also Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
State v. Moreno 734 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Moreno 734 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Sotomayor 736 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Superior Court 712 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Superior Court 712 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1983
State v. Conn 669 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1983
The State, on the other hand, contends that a , , , cert.
State v. Bishop 667 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Bishop 667 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. McGann 645 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. McGann 645 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Grounds 623 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Grounds 623 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1981
623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); State v. Altamirano, supra
State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
it was pointed out that: For constitutional purposes, there is no difference between on the one hand seizing and holding an automobile before presenting the issue of probable cause to a magistrate, and on the other hand, carrying out an immediate search without a warrant; and that give
State v. Moroyoqui 611 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Moroyoqui 611 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Distinguished State v. Becerill 606 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Warren 604 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Warren 604 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
our Supreme Court held that it was not error for a trial court to consider illegally seized evidence at a hearing in aggravation prior to sentencing.
State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Kelly 595 P.2d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Blodgette 590 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1979
State v. Blodgette 590 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1979
State v. Ahumada, 25 Ariz.App.
State v. Gutierrez 589 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Gutierrez 589 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Foster 589 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Foster 589 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
State v. Walker 579 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1978
State v. Walker 579 P.2d 1091 Ariz. 1978
On the facts of this case, , is appropriate: “It is well established that if law enforcement officers have probable cause for searching an automobile, such probable cause furnishes sufficient constitutional justification for their searching the automobile without obtaining a search warrant, and that in this respect the right
State v. Hunt 577 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1978
State v. Hunt 577 P.2d 717 Ariz. 1978
State v. White 574 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Lacquey 571 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
State v. Lacquey 571 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
State v. White 574 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977