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. Juarez, 775 P.2d 1140.

34 citing documents.

  • State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶11 “[I]n a criminal DUI case, the accused has the right to consult with an attorney, if doing so does not disrupt the investigation.”
  • Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    -79, 81, -43, 1145 (1989) (police did not allow defendants to contact attorneys and read implied consent at end of twenty-minute waiting period); see also Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 570, 744 P.2d at 671 (remanding for reasonableness determination where police prevented defendant from speaking to attor
  • State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    (Sixth Amendment right to.
  • State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    as soon as feasible after a defendant is taken into custody.” The Arizona Supreme Court has made it clear that “in a criminal DUI case, the accused has the right to consult with an attorney, if doing so does not disrupt the investigation.” , , (“It is only when the exercise of that right [to counsel under Rule 6.1] will hinder an ongoing investigation that the right to an attorney must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police.”).
  • Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    (evidence of breath test suppressed because defendant denied opportunity to contact counsel before test although allowed to contact counsel immediately after test).
  • State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    We find misplaced Gaffney’s
  • State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (refusal to allow defendant to call attorney before testing violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel); , (defendant has right to consult with attorney as long as contact does not interfere with the inve
  • State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    *485 , -10 , -25 (1982).
  • State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    our supreme court found that Campbell was not applicable to a criminal matter.
  • State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Vannoy 866 P.2d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Thornton 837 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Thornton 837 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    Thus the trial court should suppress evidence of a breath test refusal if the police unnecessarily deny a suspect’s request to speak with an attorney prior to the test, , or if an officer instructs a suspect that no contact with an attorney is allowed prior to the test
  • Taylor v. Sherrill 802 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Taylor v. Sherrill 802 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    Specifically, Taylor argued that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test, , and this court’s
  • Saenz v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Saenz v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress the intoxilyzer results, arguing that he was erroneously advised that he did not have the right to consult with an attorney before taking the test, and relying on the supreme court’s