Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Montgomery, 566 P.2d 1329.

64 citing documents.

State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
The State of Arizona v. Hon. Griffin Ryan Ahlersmeyer 526 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
The State of Arizona v. Hon. Griffin Ryan Ahlersmeyer 526 P.3d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Bryan Mitchell Lietzau 463 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Bryan Mitchell Lietzau 463 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2020
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 114, 119 (2001); (“[A] probationer who has been granted the privilege of probation on condition that he submit at any time to a warrantless search may have no reasonable expectation of traditional Fourth Amendment protection.” ( (Cal.
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Montgomery , , 584
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair 383 P.3d 1132 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair 383 P.3d 1132 Ariz. 2016
In State v. Montgomery, this Court rejected the defendant’s Fourth Amendment challenge to a probation condition that provided he would “[s]ubmit to search and seizure of person or property at any time by any police officer or probation officer without the benefit of a search warrant.”
State v. Adair 358 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Adair 358 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
& 585, 1331 (1977) (finding probation condition requiring probationer to “’[s]ubmit to search and seizure of person or property at any time by any .
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state 347 P.3d 136 Ariz. 2015
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state 347 P.3d 136 Ariz. 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
the respondent concluded that if Reed-Kaliher did not agree to comply with the condition of probation prohibiting him from marijuana use, he could have rejected probation.
State v. Walker 158 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Walker 158 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
we stated in dictum that the defendant, who complained about a condition of probation, could choose to be incarcerated instead.
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
a case decided under the former criminal code, affords him this right.
State v. Tousignant 43 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Tousignant 43 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(noting that probationers enjoy a reduced expectation of privacy and upholding a probation condition which dictated that the defendant would submit to a warrantless search by police at any time).
State v. Superior Court 930 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 930 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re James P., 180 Wis.2d 677 , 510 N.W.2d 730, 733 (App.1993), rev. denied by 515 N.W.2d 715 (Wis.1994); , (probationers have a lower expectation of privacy than other citizens).
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-500210 864 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-500210 864 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
She now casts her argument in terms of probation or incarceration, , where the Arizona Supreme Court states that an adult may reject probation, discusses the issue in that context.
State v. Garibaldi 802 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Garibaldi 802 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
The state’s argument that since appellant did not reject the possibility of probation when the terms were imposed prevents appellant from challenging the condition on appeal, , is of no moment since the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the support order and lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time.
State v. Nickerson 791 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Nickerson 791 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
our supreme court held that the fact that a probation condition amounts to a restriction on the defendant’s privacy does not necessarily render the condition unconstitutional.
State v. Turner 688 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Turner 688 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Hill 666 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Hill 666 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Christopher 652 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1982
State v. Christopher 652 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1982
State v. Hennessy, 13 Ariz.App.
State v. Balsam 636 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Balsam 636 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Smith 628 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Smith 628 P.2d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Cummings, supra; see also
State v. Harris 596 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Harris 596 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
While “probation” for certain purposes has been excluded from the definition of “sentence” we believe it is nevertheless clear that probation is a form of punishment, , State v. Fuentes, 26 Ariz.App.