Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Robin Peoples, 378 P.3d 421.

38 citing documents.

State v. Olivas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Olivas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶12 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence seized in violation of its protection is generally excluded from criminal trials.2 ¶¶ 8–9 (2016).
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stewart Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence seized in violation of its protection is generally excluded from a criminal trial.4 ¶¶ 8-9 (2016).
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gomez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Riley, 573 U.S. at 393-95; 401-03; - 49, ¶¶ 11-16 (2016) (upholding suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a cell phone).
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
–49 (2016) (rejecting the arguments that leaving a cellphone in plain view, or failing to password-protect it, allowed police to inspect its contents).
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
.”); ¶ 7 (2016); ¶ 15, n.2 (2015) (“We reiterate that review of a ruling on a motion to suppress is limited to the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.”); ¶ 17 (2009) (“A trial court ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed base
State of Arizona v. Bryan Mitchell Lietzau 463 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Bryan Mitchell Lietzau 463 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2020
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
2473 ; see also State v. Peoples , , ¶ 13, ("[C]ell phones contain 'the privacies of life' and are therefore worthy of Fourth Amendment protection."
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. Peoples , , ¶ 7
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Epsy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.” ¶ 9 (2016).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lito Hernandez 417 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2018
1515 , 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006) ; State v. Peoples , , 249 ¶ 18, , 426 (2016).
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aguayo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 10 (2016); ¶ 9 (2016) ("A warrantless search is per se unreasonable .
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Emilio Jean Ariz. 2018
¶10 Although our courts, including the trial court in this case, have sometimes referred to a person’s ability to challenge a search “as ‘standing’ for the sake of brevity,” ¶ 8 (2016), the key inquiry is whether the search “has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect,” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140 (1978).
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489–90 (2014); ¶ 16 (2016).
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State of Arizona v. Thomas L. Dean 388 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
2473, 2488-89 , 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (noting privacy interests in cell phones); , ¶ 15, (“Cell phones are intrinsically private....”).
State of Arizona v. Javier Francisco Navarro 382 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Javier Francisco Navarro 382 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Under the rule, “[t]he court must exclude from a criminal trial any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article 2, section 8, unless the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” State v. Peoples, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶ 9

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by