Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fortier, 553 P.2d 1206.

26 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Ricky Lee Sabin 146 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
merely because it would not have been discovered ‘but for’ the primary invasion” but rather may be admitted notwithstanding the illegality if secured “‘by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’” quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S. Ct. at 417.
State v. Eason 604 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Eason 604 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)
State v. Jarzab 599 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1979
State v. Jarzab 599 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1979
State v. Washington 585 P.2d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Washington 585 P.2d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The state, having conceded the initial illegality of the arrest and searches of appellees and Salvato, relied primarily on the "attenuation" , to avoid suppression of Salvato's testimony.
Brown v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CTY. OF MARICOPA 580 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1978
Brown v. SUPERIOR CT. OF CTY. OF MARICOPA 580 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1978
State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Starr 581 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Washington 585 P.2d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Washington 585 P.2d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The state, having conceded the initial illegality of the arrest and searches of appel-lees and Salvato, relied primarily on the “attenuation” , to avoid suppression of Salvato’s testimony.
State v. Doyle 571 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1977
State v. Doyle 571 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1977
State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Schutte 573 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
Distinguished State v. Cobb 566 P.2d 285 Ariz. 1977
State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
State v. McMahon 568 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1977
In this court’s , we said: “The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, explained at length in Wong Sun v. United States (citation omitted), serves to exclude as evidence not only the direct products but also the indirect products of Fourth Amendment violations.
State v. Hocker 556 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1976
State v. Hocker 556 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1976
State v. Fortier, Ariz., (Filed Aug.
State v. Dugan 555 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1976
State v. Dugan 555 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1976