DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Richards, 518 P.2d 113.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Nichols Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    For a warrantless arrest to be lawful, “[t]he officer making the arrest must have probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person arrested committed it.”
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “Probable cause exists where the arresting officers have reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances which are sufficient in themselves to lead a reasonable [person] to believe an offense is being or has been committed and that the person to be arrested is committing or did commit it.”
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    did commit it.” (“[O]ur courts have long recognized that collective knowledge of law enforcement officers may be considered to establish probable cause.”).
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    (an arresting officer need not be in personal possession of all facts as long as probable cause exists from the collective knowledge of all law enforcement agents involved in the operation).
  • 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. Peterson 830 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Peterson 830 P.2d 854 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Arizona courts have since applied this rule, finding arrests illegal when the originating officers lacked probable cause, see, , and upholding them when probable cause was present.
  • State v. Ochoa 639 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Ochoa 639 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. White 574 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. White 574 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Griffin 570 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Griffin 570 P.2d 1067 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Dupuy 568 P.2d 1049 Ariz. 1977
    ” 112 Ariz. at 97, 537 P.2d at 967 .
  • State v. Rascon 562 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Rascon 562 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Broom 557 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1976
  • State v. Broom 557 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1976
    United States v. Smith, 503 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1974).
  • State v. Price 558 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Price 558 P.2d 701 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    -292 , -115 (1974), the Supreme Court of Arizona noted as follows: “Probable cause exists where the arresting officers have reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances which are sufficient in themselves to lead a reasonable man to Relieve an offense is being or has been committed
  • State v. Torrez 544 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Torrez 544 P.2d 207 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Sardo 543 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Turner 541 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Turner 541 P.2d 1152 Ariz. 1975
    “The collective knowledge of the officers involved can be considered in determining whether probable cause did in fact exist.”
  • State v. Miller 537 P.2d 965 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Miller 537 P.2d 965 Ariz. 1975
  • State v. Brennan 528 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Brennan 528 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Everett 520 P.2d 301 Ariz. 1974