DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sardo, 543 P.2d 1138.

77 citing documents.

  • State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • State v. Mitcham 535 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    § 13-3883(A)(1); (quoting United States v. Kandlis, 432 F.2d 132, 135 (9th Cir. 1970)) (“This is a case where ‘the arrest and search are inextricably intertwined.
  • State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hicks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    However, “the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed when the correct legal theory is reached even though it was based upon the wrong reasons.”
  • 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
    On several other occasions, our high court has indicated that probable cause is lacking unless the facts suggest that criminal activity is “more probable than not.”
  • State v. Lanfor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Lanfor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Aguilar 267 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. Aguilar 267 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    ¶ 14 “Probable cause must be measured by the facts and circumstances of each case.”
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Keener 75 P.3d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Keener 75 P.3d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Hughes 938 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1997
    (evidentiary determinations should be affirmed if legally correct on any ground).
  • State v. Hanna 839 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Hanna 839 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
  • State v. Kempton 803 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Kempton 803 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    2022, 2031-32 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
    It is also not essential that the arresting officer personally be in possession of all the facts as long as “probable cause exists from the collective knowledge of all the law enforcement agents involved in this operation.”
  • State v. Wiley 698 P.2d 1244 Ariz. 1985
    It is also not essential that the arresting officer personally be in possession of all the facts as long as “probable cause exists from the collective knowledge of all the law enforcement agents involved in this operation.”
  • State v. Chavez-Inzunza 701 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Chavez-Inzunza 701 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Will 672 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Will 672 P.2d 1316 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Poland 645 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1982
    For example, law enforcement officials posed as a , a friend in United States v. Raines, 536 F.2d 796 (8th Cir. 1976); a motorist with car trouble in United States v. Wright, 641 F.2d 602 (8th Cir. 1981); and a potential Ku Klux Klan member in United States v. Bullock, 590 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1979).
  • 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. 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. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Mincey 636 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Aguirre 633 P.2d 1047 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. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Junkin 599 P.2d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Claxton 594 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Claxton 594 P.2d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    the state claims it can still rely on these different theories.
  • 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. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Million 583 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1978
    we indicated that the facts and circumstances as to whether probable cause exists may be viewed from the collective knowledge of all the law enforcement agents involved in the operation, and further, that “Information can be viewed in light of the fact that an officer relied upon his past exper