Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hutton, 519 P.2d 38.

29 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Frimmel v. Hon. sanders/state 338 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Buccini, 167 Ariz. at 557, 810 P.2d at 185 (citing United States v. Kandlis, 432 F.2d 132, 135-36 (9th Cir. 1970), ).
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 10, (“the Fourth Amendment 4 STATE v. NOTICE Decision of the Court prohibits only unreasonable seizures”); (“Only unreasonable searches and seizures are proscribed by the commands of the [Fourth] [A]mendment.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Serna 307 P.3d 82 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Buccini 810 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1991
State v. Buccini 810 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1991
United States v. Kandlis, 432 F.2d 132 (9th Cir.1970)
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Magness 565 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Distinguished State v. Magness 565 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
and Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct.
State v. Rascon 562 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rascon 562 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1977
95 , vacated on other grounds
State v. Broom 557 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1976
State v. Broom 557 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1976
“The quantum of information which constitutes probable cause, which would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a felony was being committed must be measured by the facts of the particular case.”
State v. Kappes 550 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Kappes 550 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
State v. Torrez 544 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1975
State v. Torrez 544 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gillin 541 P.2d 1150 Ariz. 1975
State v. Gillin 541 P.2d 1150 Ariz. 1975
Chimel v. California, supra
State v. Camargo 537 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1975
State v. Camargo 537 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1975
The drugs were not on the person of Espinoza but in his home, , and 72 hours is a period of time for which it is reasonable to believe that the contraband would still be present in the home.
State v. Camargo 530 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Camargo 530 P.2d 893 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975