Cited by

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

94 citing documents.

State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
: “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 to search an a
State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Zamora 559 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
wherein the appellant had also been convicted of possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana.
State v. Celaya 556 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Celaya 556 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the Court stated: “Where the jury has determined that the facts support both charges, then A. R.S.
State v. Million 556 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Million 556 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct.
State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Castro 554 P.2d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Lopez 555 P.2d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
1472 , 20 L.Ed.2d 538 (1968)
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Hinkle 550 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Eliason 544 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); , such searches, nevertheless, must be supported by probable cause.
State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
at 478 , at 848 (1974): “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
State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Ahumada 542 P.2d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Brosie 540 P.2d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Tuell 541 P.2d 1142 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gomez 540 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gomez 540 P.2d 1224 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hernandez 540 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1975
State v. Hernandez 540 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1975
we held: “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 to se
State v. Goldberg 540 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1975
State v. Goldberg 540 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
State v. Jackson 539 P.2d 906 Ariz. 1975
State v. Sumter 536 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Sumter 536 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Harrison 533 P.2d 1143 Ariz. 1975
State v. Harrison 533 P.2d 1143 Ariz. 1975
prohibited submitting both the charges of possession of marijuana for sale and its transportation to the jury.
State v. Dixon 521 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
State v. Dixon 521 P.2d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Just this month, , held that it was not error for a trial court to consider illegally seized evidence at a hearing in aggravation.
State v. Richie 521 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974
State v. Richie 521 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
decided by this court in April of 1974, for the proposition that it is not error for a court to admit illegally seized evidence at a sentencing hearing.
State v. Kasold 521 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kasold 521 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1974