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. Bolt, 689 P.2d 519.

111 citing documents.

  • State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    -65 , -24 (1984) (“While Arizona’s constitutional provisions generally were intended to incorporate the federal protections ...
  • Petersen v. City of Mesa 63 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Petersen v. City of Mesa 63 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    ¶ 10 Concern that the Fourth Amendment might not bar a warrantless entry for police to “secure” and inspect a home while awaiting a warrant led the court, in State v. Bolt, to clarify that “[s]uch entries are ‘per se unlawful’ under our state constitution.” -65 , -24 (1984) ( , ).
  • 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
    (deciding “not to extend the inevitable discovery doctrine into defendant’s home”); , (affirming as a matter of state law that “officers may not make a warrantless entry of a home in the absence of exigent circumstances or other necessity”).
  • Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    613, 620 , 38 L.Ed.2d 561, 571 (1974), Whether to apply that rule to a particular fact situation requires “weighting] the benefits of vindicating a constitutional right through the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule against the possibility that other deterrents may exist which would accomplish the same result at less cost to society.” , , (J. Corcoran, specially concurring).
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Cañez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Canez 42 P.3d 564 Ariz. 2002
    State v. Bolt, 142 Ariz. 260, 265
  • Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 29 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 29 P.3d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. DeCamp 3 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. DeCamp 3 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ¶ 16 In general, “the exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule,” Hackman, 189 Ariz. at 508 n. 3, 943 P.2d at 868 n. 3., , and the federal rule no longer requires “inadvertence.” Horton, 496 U.S. at 130 , 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Soto 990 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    for the expansion of the right to privacy.
  • State v. Hackman 943 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Hackman 943 P.2d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    1684, 1691-92 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), , and to the Sixth Amendment by Massiah, 377 U.S. at 206 , 84 S.Ct.
  • State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
    1437 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960); , State v. Mollica, 114 N.J.
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
    at 357, 359 , 897 P.2d at 659 , 661 (citing Ariz. Const, art. II, § 8; -65 , -24 (1984); , ).
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Walker 914 P.2d 1320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Article 2, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution is “specific in preserving the sanctity of homes and in creating a right of privacy.” -65 , -24 (1984).
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Evans 866 P.2d 869 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Atwood 832 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Krantz 848 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Hanna 839 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Allgood 831 P.2d 1290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Herrera-Rodriguez 790 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    See, , (refusal to extend inevitable discovery doctrine into defendant’s home, based on art. 2, § 8 of Arizona Constitution, which more explicitly protects sanctity of the home than its federal counterpart); -65 , -24 (1984) (in absence of exigent circumstances, warrantless searches go beyond protections of art. 2, § 8 of Arizona Constitution, despite rulings of U.S. Supreme Court under counterpart provisions of U.S. Constitution); , (refusa
  • State v. Hendrix 799 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Hendrix 799 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Valenzuela 788 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Valenzuela 788 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    We believe that our supreme court, in addressing a , gave a clear indication that it would tolerate the incursion of the statute we now consider.
  • State v. Jeney 787 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Jeney 787 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    Finally, he argues that, , the search of his home incident to the arrest on a misdemeanor traffic warrant violated his right to privacy under the Arizona State Constitution.
  • State v. Valdez 770 P.2d 313 Ariz. 1989