Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Norton v. Black, 463 P.2d 533.

15 citing documents.

State v. Hermanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“[T]he resolution of conflicts in testimony is the function of the trial court.” -79 (1970).
State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
“To require that the police arrest everyone to whom they talk in the course of routine police duties would only serve to place an unwarranted burden on both the police and the citizens of the community.”
State v. Johnson 710 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1985
State v. Galioto 613 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Lewis 589 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. MacUmber 544 P.2d 1084 Ariz. 1976
State v. Jensen 531 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1975
State v. McDonald 526 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1974
Under the record in the instant case, there is nothing to show that the trial court abused this discretion or that the handcuffs were not removed as soon as safety would permit.” , -536 (1970).
State v. Mayes 518 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1974
this Court held that the prosecution must prove consent by clear and positive evidence by showing unequivocal words or conduct expressing consent to the search; further in Sherron the Court stated: “Neither Miranda nor Orozco require that a police officer refrain from speaking to any citizen on t
State v. Bainch 505 P.2d 248 Ariz. 1973
State v. Damon 502 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
543 (1925); and (3) consent, , cf. Bumper v. State of North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
State v. Schindorff 484 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1971
when speaking of constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct.
State v. Hall 468 P.2d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Linsner 467 P.2d 238 Ariz. 1970