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. Ault, 724 P.2d 545.

144 citing documents.

  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (declining to use inevitable discovery exception where illegal search invaded the defendant’s home, based on the Arizona Constitution’s special protection of the privacy of the home).
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Strong 914 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    the supreme court also rejected an argument that a photographic lineup was unduly suggestive where the defendant’s photograph was “the only one not taken from a full, frontal position, but at an upward angle.” Arizona courts have rejected claims of undue suggestiveness based on far les
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
    “[T]he products of a subsequent search under warrant may be admitted at trial, provided the warrant was based on information legally obtained.” , , (holding that evidence seized during illegal search must be suppressed but that other evidence seized later pursuant to search warrant was admissible).
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    2408, 2412 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)
  • Baker v. Clover 864 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Baker v. Clover 864 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
    (entry into home by police acting on probable cause unlawful absent warrant, consent, exigent circumstances, or other necessity).
  • 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. Rowland 836 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
  • State v. Rowland 836 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
  • State v. Tykwinski 824 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Tykwinski 824 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (refused to apply inevitable discovery doctrine to permit admission of evidence seized during illegal search of home).
  • State v. Taylor 808 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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 exig
  • 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. Emond 786 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Emond 786 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. White 770 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1989
  • Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee 767 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee 767 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    the court refused to apply the inevitable discovery doctrine to justify a search of a defendant’s home under the language of the Arizona search and seizure section “regardless of the position the United States Supreme Court would take on th[e] issue.” We note that, of course, state act
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Mauro 766 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1988
    See, , (search and seizure, Ariz.Const.
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
    The details of the investigation and the facts as brought out in Ault’s
  • State v. Calabrese 755 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Calabrese 755 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    Calabrese acknowledges the holding in Robinson but argues that a warrantless search incident to a custodial arrest should be limited by article 2, section 8 of the Arizona Constitution
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Reasoner 742 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Edwards 739 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986