Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pelosi, 199 P.2d 125.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
(noting that the Private Affairs Clause “was adopted for the purpose of preserving the rights which the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was intended to protect”)
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Lemon Montrea Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Our supreme court has stated that, although “Arizona’s constitutional provisions generally were intended to incorporate the federal protections, they are specific in preserving the sanctity of homes and in creating a right of privacy.” -65, -24 (1984) (citation omitted); 6 Johnson asserts “[t]he State .
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
See Bolt, 142 Ariz. at 264 , 689 P.2d at 523 (recognizing need for uniformity between federal and state courts and that our constitution generally incorporates federal protections); State v. Pelosi , overruled in part on other grounds, , (Article 2, Section 8’s purpose is to preserve Fourth Amendment rights); , 246 P. 548, 549 (1926) (although its language may differ from Fourth Amendment
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
(Article 2, Section 8 “was adopted for the purpose of preserving the rights which the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was intended to protect.”); , 246 P. 548, 549 (1926) (“Section 8, article 2, of the state Constitution [ ], although diffe
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
overruled in part on other grounds
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the defendants appealed their convictions of having violated Ch. 85, Session Laws 1945 (§ 73-1607a, Cum.
State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
State v. Intogna 419 P.2d 59 Ariz. 1966
United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct.
State v. Pina 383 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1963
State v. Pina 383 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1963
State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 130 Ariz. 1962
State v. Quintana 376 P.2d 130 Ariz. 1962
The fact that they found something different than that for which they searched does not render a valid search invalid, People v. Gonzales, supra; Self v. State, Fla., 98 So.2d 333 (1957); Harris v. *270 United States, supra; and since the search was valid so was the seizure
State v. Berg 259 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1953
State v. Berg 259 P.2d 261 Ariz. 1953
We hold, therefore, that in determining the admissibility of evidence the fact that it has been obtained as the result of a violation of the Fourth Amendment does not affect the issue.” , .
Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Flagstaff v. Jones 250 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1952
Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Flagstaff v. Jones 250 P.2d 586 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
are controlling in their statements that an initiative measure may not be amended or repealed by the Legislature.
State v. Deckter 242 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1952
State v. Deckter 242 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1952
We concede that the publications received in evidence are hearsay and if material, , , has settled the question, for the reason that we held in that case it was immaterial whether the horses ran in those races on those dates.
State v. Miller 224 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1950
State v. Miller 224 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1950
240 P. 863 ; , 243 P. 601 .