Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Dean, 76 P.3d 429.

49 citing documents.

State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
4 STATE v. KNIGHT Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶14 “In reviewing an order involving a motion to suppress, we review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the order, and will not disturb the trial court's ruling absent ‘clear and manifest error.’” ¶ 9 (2003) ().
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Young Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 8 (2003); U.S. Const. Amend.
State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Osgood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well- delineated exceptions.” ¶ 12 (App. 2021) ( ¶ 8 (2003)).
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Mudd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 8 n.1 (2003); ¶ 14 (App. 2002) (“[E]xcept in cases involving ‘unlawful’ warrantless home entries, Arizona courts have not yet applied Article 2, Section 8 to grant broader protections against search and seizure than those available under the federal constitution.”); see
State v. Mudd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶18 “In reviewing an order involving a motion to suppress, we review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the order, and will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent ‘clear and manifest error.’” ¶ 9 (2003) ().
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Haley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Black Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well- delineated exceptions.” ¶ 8 (2003) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)).
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
¶ 7 n.3 (2011); ¶ 8 n.1 (2003).
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Matthew Thomas Snyder 382 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kroetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[S]uch a search must be ‘routine,’ and not a ‘pretext concealing an investigatory police motive.’” ¶ 10, (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 376, 96 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel 375 P.3d 938 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Carlos Andres MacIel 375 P.3d 938 Ariz. 2016
State v. Jacot 330 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Jacot 330 P.3d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Gilbert Martinez 282 P.3d 409 Ariz. 2012
See, ¶ 8 n.1, n.1 (2003); ¶ 4 n.1, n.1 (1997).
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State v. Isiah Patterson 283 P.3d 1 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Jahmari Ali Manuel 270 P.3d 828 Ariz. 2011
¶11 We review the denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, considering only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the ruling, ¶ 9
State v. Fisher 250 P.3d 1192 Ariz. 2011
State v. Fisher 250 P.3d 1192 Ariz. 2011
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Kinney 241 P.3d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mendoza-Ruiz 240 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Mendoza-Ruiz 240 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Alexander Joel Huerta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Gant 162 P.3d 640 Ariz. 2007
State v. Gant 162 P.3d 640 Ariz. 2007
The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, and remanded to that court to reconsider its opinion in light of this Court’s
State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Criticized State v. Gant 143 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
While the ease was awaiting argument, the Arizona Supreme Court decided [State v.] Dean, [ , ] which criticized our decision in Gant and rejected its analysis.
State v. Windus 86 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Windus 86 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by