Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Ochoa, 544 P.2d 1097.

33 citing documents.

State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Vera 996 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Distinguished State v. Vera 996 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
¶ 8 , upon which appellee relies.
State v. Richcreek 930 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1997
State v. Richcreek 930 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1997
State v. Richcreek 924 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Richcreek 924 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Boudette 791 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Boudette 791 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
See Terry v. Ohio, supra; -86 , -01 (1976).
State Ex Rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State 663 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1983
State Ex Rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State 663 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1983
“Both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 2, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution, providing that ‘No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs * * * without authority of law’ protect travelers upon the public highways from harassment by government agents if *3 there is no basis to support a founded suspicion of criminal activity.”
State v. Graciano 653 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1982
State v. Graciano 653 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1982
2574, 2578 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
State v. Axley 646 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1982
we recognized a distinction between a stop made to discover a crime in the first instance and a stop made to investigate a crime already known to have been committed.
State v. Jarzab 599 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1979
State v. Randall 569 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Randall 569 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Villagrana 564 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Villagrana 564 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
While the accuracy of the officer’s suspicions is no longer subject to dispute, , falling instead into the category of a proscribed stop for the purpose of discovering crime in the first instance, as distinguished from a stop made for the purpose of investigating a crime already known to have been committed.
State v. Susko 562 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1977
State v. Susko 562 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1977
State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Wynn 562 P.2d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Curlin 560 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1976
State v. Curlin 560 P.2d 62 Ariz. 1976
State v. Fortier 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. 1976
State v. Fortier 553 P.2d 1206 Ariz. 1976
State v. Gutierrez 553 P.2d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Gutierrez 553 P.2d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
The appellant relies on the recent Arizona Supreme Court case