DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Greene, 784 P.2d 257.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    7 In contrast, the exigent circumstances exception generally applies where “a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or to the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay until a 4 STATE v. THOMAS Decision of the Court warrant could be obtained.”
  • State of Arizona v. Bradley Harold Wilson 350 P.3d 800 Ariz. 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Bradley Harold Wilson 350 P.3d 800 Ariz. 2015
    Exigent circumstances exist when “a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or to the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay a search until a warrant could be obtained.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Exigent circumstances exist when “a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay a search until a warrant could be obtained.” , (citation omitted).
  • State v. Fisher 250 P.3d 1192 Ariz. 2011
  • State v. Fisher 250 P.3d 1192 Ariz. 2011
    5 ¶11 Although we have upheld protective sweeps based on exigent circumstances, see, e.g., State v. DeWitt, 184 Ariz. 464, 467, (finding warrantless entry of home justified by burglary in progress); (upholding “protective walk-through” of residence when initial entry was based on an exigency), we have never specifically applied the Buie test.
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State v. Cheramie 171 P.3d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958)); see also
  • State v. King 984 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. King 984 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See, -33 , -59 (1989) (finding that the police entered a home within the exigent circumstance exception when responding to a domestic violence call); , (holding that, because “the act of calling the police was likely to enrage further
  • Mazen v. Seidel 940 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1997
  • Mazen v. Seidel 940 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1997
    This court has defined exigent circumstances as “those in which a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or to the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay until a warrant could be obtained.”
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. DeWitt 910 P.2d 9 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Greene 898 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Greene 898 P.2d 954 Ariz. 1995
    After an appeal by the state
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. DeWitt 897 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Exigent circumstances are “those in which a substantial risk of harm to the persons involved or to the law enforcement process would arise if the police were to delay until a warrant could be obtained.”
  • State v. Gissendaner 865 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Gissendaner 865 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
  • State v. Vasquez 807 P.2d 520 Ariz. 1991
    This court recently recognized that “[t]he call [to a family fight] itself creates a sufficient indication that an exigency exists____”