Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Walker, 579 P.2d 1091.

41 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan 548 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan 548 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples 378 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples 378 P.3d 421 Ariz. 2016
¶14 The court of appeals also incorrectly suggested that Peoples lost his privacy interest in the cell phone by “[leaving] D.C.’s apartment while numerous other individuals were present, including police officers, leaving his cellular telephone behind, in the bathroom.” Peoples, 2 CA-CR 2014-0408, at *6 ¶ 27; (acknowledging that a person retains no reasonable expectation of privacy in property that is voluntarily abandoned).
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
A court will find that property has been abandoned only when “„the person prejudiced by the search had voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property in question so that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search.‟” quoting United States v. Colbert, 474 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir. 1973).
State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Rogers 924 P.2d 1027 Ariz. 1996
State v. Daniel 817 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Daniel 817 P.2d 18 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Davis 742 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Sheko 704 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Sheko 704 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In the absence of a clear and manifest error, we will not interfere with a trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress, , , and will affirm the trial court’s correct decision even if it was reached for the wrong reason.
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
State v. Kelly 636 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Kelly 636 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1981
State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1981
State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Morrow 625 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
The evidence viewed most favorably to the trial court’s ruling establishes that Morrow was no less than a bailee “for a friend.” , is inapposite.
State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Laughter 625 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Reuben 612 P.2d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Reuben 612 P.2d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Because the search was based upon probable cause and there were exigent circumstances to search the vehicle, , we need not reach the second issue of whether appellant’s consent was voluntary.
State v. Asbury 602 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Asbury 602 P.2d 838 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
He therefore “has no standing to complain of a search or seizure of property he has voluntarily abandoned.”
State v. Crutchfield 601 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Crutchfield 601 P.2d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
State v. Smith 599 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1979
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. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Lynch 587 P.2d 770 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Mosley 581 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1978
State v. Vandeveer, 23 Ariz.App.