Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Zavala, 666 P.2d 456.

46 citing documents.

State v. Lopez-Clemente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lopez-Clemente Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[D]riving entails some motion of the vehicle in which the offender is apprehended.”
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tarr 331 P.3d 423 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
358 n. 1, , 458 n. 1 (1983); Fettis, 136 Ariz. at 59 , 664 P.2d at 209 .
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
State v. Zaragoza 209 P.3d 629 Ariz. 2009
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
at 326, 897 P.2d at 628 ; , (interpreting “actual physical control” language as encouraging impaired drivers to pull over and sleep until sober).
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
tion to suppress based on that statute.5 See, P.2d 315 (1991) (trial court properly admitted defendant’s blood test results after he had driven his car into path of oncoming vehicle, caused death of other driver, smelled of alcohol at the scene and during questioning at hospital, even though defendant was not under arrest at that time); P.2d 456 (1983) (officer had probable cause to make DUI arrest after officer found defendant unconscious in vehicle parked off roadway and noted strong odor of a
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel Heriberto Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 626 (1995); P.2d 456 (1983); P.2d 338 (1954); Potter v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., P.3d 837 (App. 2002); Dawley.
Potter v. Arizona Department of Transportation 59 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Potter v. Arizona Department of Transportation 59 P.3d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 11 Potter argues, however, that the above-described facts cannot constitute reasonable grounds for believing that she had actual physical control over her car while intoxicated because she had entered the “safe harbor”
State v. Dawley 34 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Dawley 34 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Superior Court of State 945 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(defendant guilty of DUI when found asleep inside a truck which was stopped in a traffic lane with its engine running) , (defendant not guilty of DUI when found asleep inside truck which was stopped in an emergency lane with key in ignition but engine not running).
State v. Love 897 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1995
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
State Ex Rel. O'Neill v. Brown 898 P.2d 474 Ariz. 1995
he moved to dismiss both charges.
State v. Love 897 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1995
the defendant was found asleep and partly hanging out of the driver’s side window of his truck, which was parked in the emergency lane of Interstate 10.
State v. Larriva 870 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Larriva 870 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
the distinguishing factor being that in Zavala the defendant was found not to be in actual physical control of his vehicle because the engine was not running.
State v. Robles 831 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Robles 831 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Owen v. Creedon 826 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Owen v. Creedon 826 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
*513 , appellant contends there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was driving or in actual physical control of the motor vehicle.
State v. Hensley 774 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1989
State v. Hensley 774 P.2d 1347 Ariz. 1989
State v. Vermuele 772 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Vermuele 772 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
The question of “actual physical control”
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen also argues that “[t]he state has by implication recognized the diminishing state interest as one moves away from the actual traffic lanes” of highways, , , and State v. Superior Court, County of Greenlee
State v. SUPER. CT., GREENLEE COUNTY 735 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPER. CT., GREENLEE COUNTY 735 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
the supreme court again considered the question of “actual physical control.” There, the defendant was found asleep in his vehicle, which was stopped in the emergency or shoulder lane of Interstate 10 with the motor not running and the key in the ignition.
Willis v. State 701 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Willis v. State 701 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
This is not a , where the evidence tended to show the driver had pulled off the highway to “sleep it off.” The finding of refusal to take the test also had sufficient evidentiary basis.
State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1983
State v. Shumway 672 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1983