DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Morrow, 625 P.2d 898.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
    See, (holding that dog’s sniffing a bag at an airport is not a search and stating that “plain smell” doctrine is akin to “plain view” doctrine).
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    Baggett, , 306 P.3d at 85
  • State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
    See Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408-09 (holding that a canine sniff performed on the exterior of a lawfully detained car “compromises no legitimate privacy interest”) (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123 (1984)); -13, -02 (1981) (holding that a dog sniff of luggage in a public place is not a search); aff’d and adopted, P.2d 1272 (1976) (holding that use of narcotics dog by police officers
  • State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    9 *90 ¶ 28 The dissent asserts our conclusion defies settled Arizona law, contending our supreme court’s , should control our result here.
  • State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000) (dog sniff of exterior of car at drug checkpoint not a search); P.2d 607 (1991) (dog sniff of exterior of car subsequent to valid traffic stop does not constitute search); see also United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983); State v. Morrow, 128 Ariz. 309
  • State v. Juarez 55 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Juarez 55 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    (“A search is an intrusion into an area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”).
  • State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
    (“A search is an intrusion into an area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct.
  • 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
  • State v. Torres 704 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Torres 704 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Cooper 636 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Cooper 636 P.2d 126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Curiel 634 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)