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. Rogers, 924 P.2d 1027.

77 citing documents.

  • State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    We review de novo the court’s ultimate legal determination of the propriety of a stop as a “mixed question of law and fact,” , but we consider the evidence presented at the hearing in the light most favorable to upholding its finding, State v. *147 Ossana
  • State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Ossana 18 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    and we review de novo the court’s ultimate legal determination on the propriety of a stop, “a mixed question of law and fact.”
  • State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    2382 , 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); , (reasonable person would not have felt free to disregard police when officer approached and stated, “police officers, we need to talk to you”).
  • State v. Gomez 6 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Gomez 6 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • 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. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Valle 996 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    371 , 407 S.E.2d 375 (1991) (asking suspect to empty his pockets in lieu of pat-down exceeded scope of Terry); , (citing United States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561, 1565, 1567 (10th Cir.1991)) (momentarily yielding to officer’s direction to "hold up” is yielding to show of authority).
  • 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
  • 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
  • State v. Magner 956 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Magner 956 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Altieri 951 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Altieri 951 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1997
    However, the trial court’s ultimate legal determination concerning whether police had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which “justified conducting an investigatory stop is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo.” , (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 , 116 S.Ct.
  • State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Weinstein 947 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
  • 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
    1868, 1878-81 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
  • State v. Stricklin 955 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • State v. Stricklin 955 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    Although it is difficult to articulate what satisfies the Terry requirement of reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, , *246 we conclude that there was insufficient evidence here.
  • State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
  • State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez 927 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1996
    recently decided by this court, involved a pedestrian stop by local police officers and an attempted interrogation of the defendant at the scene of the stop.