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. Lamb, 568 P.2d 1032.

52 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Ian Mitcham 559 P.3d 1099 Ariz. 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Ian Mitcham 559 P.3d 1099 Ariz. 2024
    this Court agreed with other courts that “evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed where, in the normal course of the police investigation and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered anyway.” Although the events demonstrating inevitable discove
  • State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    The officers would have been 7 STATE v. BRISSETTE Decision of the Court entitled to search Brissette incident to his arrest, at which point they would have discovered the weapon and methamphetamine.
  • State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hollins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    6 STATE v. HOLLINS Decision of the Court 207 Ariz. at 204, ¶ 35 (citing Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984); ).
  • Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
  • Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
  • Jason S Brown v. Hon. mcclennen/state Ariz. 2016
    d police to victim’s body because “volunteer search teams would have resumed the search had [defendant] not earlier led the police to the body and the body inevitably would have been found”); (holding that despite warrantless search of a car, police inevitably would have found contents during subsequent inventory search); (concluding that evidence obtained in illegal pat-down search was admissible because defendant would have been arrested on grounds independent of the search and the evidence wo
  • Brown v. McClennen ex rel. County of Maricopa 373 P.3d 538 Ariz. 2016
    police to victim’s body because “volunteer search teams would have resumed the search had [defendant] not earlier led the police to the body and the body inevitably would have been found”); , (holding that despite warrant-less search of a car, police inevitably would have found contents during subsequent inventory search); , (concluding that evidence obtained in illegal pat-down search was admissible because defendant would have been arrested on grounds independent of the search and the evidence
  • State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Davolt 84 P.3d 456 Ariz. 2004
    Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984)
  • State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    it said: “[E]videnee obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed where, in the normal course of the police investigation and absent illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered anyway.” Id.
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Jones 917 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1996
    2501, 2509 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984); , (“[Ejvidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search need not be suppressed where, in the normal course of the police investigation and absent the illicit conduct, the evidence would have been discovered anyway.”).
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Acosta 801 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    2501, 2508-09, 2511 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Ault 724 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1986
    We recognize the inevitable discovery doctrine in Arizona, , , , but will allow its use only in appropriate circumstances.
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Fletcher 717 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1986
    Additionally, , states: “It is reversible error for a trial judge in a criminal case to communicate with the jurors after they have retired to deliberate unless the defendant and counsel have been notified and given an opportunity to be present.” Id.
  • State v. Stough 669 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Stough 669 P.2d 99 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Hilliard 651 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    State v. *367 Lamb, , State v. Robin, supra; State v. Werring, supra; State v. Burnetts, supra.
  • 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
    On the other hand, it does contain support for a finding that the lawful discovery of those items was both imminent and inevitable notwithstanding the actions of Sergeant Grimshaw, so that the items would have *179 been admissible even if they had been “tainted.”
  • 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. Osbond 623 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Osbond 623 P.2d 1232 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Reynolds 611 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Reynolds 611 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    United States v. Jackson, 448 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1971)” The defendant argues that such evidence was clearly the fruit of the illegal entry and arrest and therefore should have been excluded.
  • State v. Evans 610 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Evans 610 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Mata 609 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1980
    State v. Robin, supra; State v. Werring, supra; State v. Burnetts, supra.
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Pawley 599 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Kelly 597 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. DeWoody 595 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. DeWoody 595 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. McGill 580 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. McGill 580 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1978
    We have stated: “Whether there has been an accurate in-court identification of the defendant, not *335 tainted by prior identification procedures and whether such procedures are fair, are preliminary questions for the trial court, (citation omitted), and the trial court’s determination will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear and manifest error, (citations omitted)”
  • 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