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. Blackmore, 925 P.2d 1347.

127 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Frank Joseph Sarullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • State of Arizona v. Zachary Samuel Eggers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112-13, 116 S. Ct. 457, 465 (1995)
  • In Re Ilono H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • In Re Ilono H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    ¶2 We review only the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, and we view it in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s factual findings.
  • State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    BACKGROUND ¶2 In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review only the evidence submitted at the suppression hearing, P.2d 1347 (1996), and we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling, P.2d 270 (App. 1985).
  • State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Navarro 34 P.3d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Wozniak v. Galati 30 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    (requiring “great deference to the trial court’s factual determination”).
  • State v. Wyman 3 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Wyman 3 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Adams 5 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Adams 5 P.3d 903 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Roy L. 4 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    “The standard for determining the validity of a Terry stop is whether ‘a reasonably prudent [person] in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.’ ” , (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    ¶ 2 In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we give deference to the trial court’s factual findings, , but review de novo legal issues and mixed questions of fact and law.
  • State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See id., , see Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 767 , 86 S.Ct.
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    for the principle that a de novo review is the proper standard to determine whether an arrest is illegal.
  • In Re Steven O. 932 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • In Re Steven O. 932 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    (officer reasonably believed burglary suspect was armed and dangerous where officer was alone with the suspect in an alley at dusk, and suspect was hiding); , (protective frisk justified where officers responded to domestic
  • State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Solano 930 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996