Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Evans, 349 P.3d 205.

50 citing documents.

State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Motion to Suppress ¶13 Driffin first argues that “[t]he superior court erred by denying the motion to suppress based on an illegal detention which lasted beyond the purpose of the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion.” We review the court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, but consider the “ultimate legal determination de novo.” ¶ 6 (2015).
State of Arizona v. Asalia Guadalupe Alvarez-Soto Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Asalia Guadalupe Alvarez-Soto Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Asalia Guadalupe Alvarez-Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Asalia Guadalupe Alvarez-Soto Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State v. Sidor 558 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sidor 558 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II 502 P.3d 437 Ariz. 2022
See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809–10 (1996); ¶ 1 (2015).
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Kochendarfer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Reasonable suspicion requires an officer have “a particularized and objective basis” considering the totality of circumstances for suspecting criminal activity, Kjolsrud, 239 Ariz. at 323, ¶ 15 ( ¶ 8 (2015)), which must be “more than an inchoate ‘hunch,’” Teagle, 217 Ariz. at 23, ¶ 25.
State v. Levesque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Levesque Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Reasonable suspicion is determined from “the totality of the circumstances.” ¶ 8 (2015) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)).
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
State v. Lietzau 439 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
See State v. Evans , , ¶ 11, (to justify suspicion, officer need not rule out the possibility of innocent explanations for conduct); State v. Teagle , , ¶ 49, (reasonable suspicion is based on particularized and objective facts, not hard certainties).
State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Brissette Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶13 A police officer may conduct an investigatory stop “if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks probable cause.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)); ¶ 7 (2015).
State v. Walters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Walters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 7 (2015) (quotation omitted); see Fornof, 218 Ariz. at 76, ¶ 6 (factors to consider in reasonable suspicion analysis include a suspect’s conduct and appearance, the location, and surrounding circumstances, including the time of day).
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tucker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 6 (2015); ¶ 21 (2004).
State v. Turner 416 P.3d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Turner 416 P.3d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Evans , , ¶ 11, , 208-09 (2015).
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Mortemore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 6 (2015); ¶ 21 (2004).
State v. Ribble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ribble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Further, “when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, the police are not required to rule out the possibility of innocent explanations for a defendant’s conduct.” ¶ 16 (2015).
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Payan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶16 A law enforcement official may “briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot[.]” ¶ 7 (2015) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Malin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Malin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7 (2015) (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair 383 P.3d 1132 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Christian Adair 383 P.3d 1132 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr. 380 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
This narrative would be little more than a “hunch,” The state conceded at oral argument that Huez was not engaging in any illegal behavior at the time of the stop.
State of Arizona v. Angel Pete Ruiz 372 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Angel Pete Ruiz 372 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
3 STATE v. RUIZ Opinion of the Court findings on the motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion, but we review its ultimate legal determination de novo.” (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch 371 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Reasonable suspicion exists if, under the totality of the circumstances, an officer developed “‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’” quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981).
State v. Pena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Pena Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶6 (2015); ¶11 (2012); ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Liwski 358 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Liwski 358 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(police must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain person).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
The facts must be “specific, distinct, or ‘particular’ to the suspect” so as to “reduce the risk of sweeping in a substantial number of innocent travelers.” ¶¶ 10, 17 , 209 (2015).