Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Blackmore, 925 P.2d 1347.

127 citing documents.

State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶40 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider only the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, and we view those facts in the manner most favorable to upholding the superior court's ruling.
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶3 In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court restricts its review to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining its ruling.
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nissley 362 P.3d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Galaviz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cheatham 353 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cheatham 353 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Krauch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
give it up, the tin “would have been inevitably discovered because Officer Volpe knew [Krauch] had something in her bra and he would have had her searched if she had not turned the item over to him voluntarily.” ¶17 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we restrict our review to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we restrict our review to consideration of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court's ruling.
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Falkenburry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cook Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we only review the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling.
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27).
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Curtis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, this court limits the review to the facts the superior court considered at the suppression hearing, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court’s ruling
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Edwards Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We restrict our review to consideration of the facts the trial court heard at the suppression hearing.”
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B. 302 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 280 P.3d 1239 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Nelson Ivan Boteo-Flores 280 P.3d 1239 Ariz. 2012
State v. Hummons 253 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2011
State v. Hummons 253 P.3d 275 Ariz. 2011
See, ¶ 14, (applying attenuation doctrine to consent search following allegedly illegal search); -35, -52 (1996) (upholding search following allegedly illegal arrest); -21, -58 (1996) (upholding admission of statements made after illegal arrest).
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Blakley 243 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶ 5 When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, , and view it in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling
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. Ryan Ray Olm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Ryan Ray Olm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we consider only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and view that evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court‟s ruling.
State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
State v. Guillen 223 P.3d 658 Ariz. 2010
Given these circumstances, we conclude that any supposed “flagrancy of the official misconduct [was] de minimis.” 1352 (1996); see also Reffitt, 145 Ariz. at 460, 702 P.2d at 689 (even if police actions in illegally arresting defendant were “erroneous and regrettable,” they “did not involve flagrant or purposeful misconduct” so as to taint subsequent confess
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
We give great deference to the trial court’s factual determination, but we review the ultimate question de novo.” State v. Blackmore, 186 Ariz. 630, 632
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Guillen 213 P.3d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 2 When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, , and view it in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s factual findings.
State v. Starr 213 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Starr 213 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008