Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Graciano, 653 P.2d 683.

40 citing documents.

State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 9 (App. 2009) (reasonable suspicion justifying detention is “a justifiable suspicion that the particular individual to be detained is involved in criminal activity” ()).
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at 76, ¶ 5 (emphasis omitted) ().
Flynn v. Hon starr/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Flynn v. Hon starr/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 FLYNN v. HON STARR/STATE Decision of the Court “Hunches, intuition, and ‘unparticularized suspicion’ are not enough.” Richcreek, 187 Ariz. at 505 ().
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Massey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The totality of the circumstances must “raise a justifiable suspicion that the particular individual to be detained is involved in criminal activity.”
State v. Canales 217 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Canales 217 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
We must also determine whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, which is “a justifiable suspicion that the particular individual to be detained is involved in criminal activity.”
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Thus, an officer may only conduct such a stop if the totality 3 of the circumstances “raise[s] a justifiable suspicion that the particular individual to be detained is involved in criminal activity.”
State v. Richcreek 930 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1997
State v. Richcreek 930 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1997
State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
State v. Saez 845 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Saez 845 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
1391, 1400 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)
State v. Cifuentes 830 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Cifuentes 830 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
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
690, 694 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)
State v. Bullington 795 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Bullington 795 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
the assessment of all the circumstances may be based upon some degree of subjectivity involving the application of the officer’s training and experience, plus any number of objective factors such as the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers, the officer’s observ
State v. Maldonado 793 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Maldonado 793 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
our supreme court held that while the facts sufficient to justify an investigatory stop will vary from case to case, the stop must be based upon “particularized” or “founded” suspicion by the officer, and that the officer must state an “articulable reason” for the stop.
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Superior Court 718 P.2d 171 Ariz. 1986
State v. Payan 714 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Payan 714 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
State v. Lawson 698 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1985
690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)
State v. Chavez-Inzunza 701 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Chavez-Inzunza 701 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Bolt 689 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1984
State v. Bolt 689 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1984
State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Snowden 675 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State Ex Rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State 663 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1983
State Ex Rel. Ekstrom v. Justice Ct. of State 663 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1983