Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gonzalez-Gutierrez, 927 P.2d 776.

142 citing documents.

State v. Sweeney 227 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
the Fourth Amendment because it was "based on nothing more than the year, type, and cleanliness of the vehicle, the apparent nationality of the driver and passenger, the style of their clothing, the apparent lack of conversation between driver and passenger, and the driver's manner of holding the steering wheel with an outstretched arm when the patrol car approached.” -21 , -81 (1996) (citing Maldonado, , ).
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
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Lucero 220 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-001752 218 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-001752 218 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 213 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 213 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Billie Marie Fornof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(totality of circumstances analysis includes “evaluat[ing] subjective elements, such as agent’s training and experience).
State v. Teagle 170 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Moss 160 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 42 , (confirming de novo review of challenges regarding admissibility under the Confrontation Clause); ¶ 16 , (same).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Storholm 109 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Storholm 109 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Smith 90 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Smith 90 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(“[The] investigatory stop of a motor vehicle constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment[.]”); ¶ 12 , (“[A] defendant who establishes that evidence was seized pursuant to a warrantless search has satisfied the
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Livingston 75 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶ 9 “An investigatory stop of a motor vehicle constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
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
State v. O'MEARA 4 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. O'MEARA 4 P.3d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
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. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Richcreek 930 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1997
State v. Richcreek 930 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1997
“Stop of an automobile is permitted when based on a reasonable suspicion that the [driver or passenger was] engaged in criminal activity.” , 231 Ariz.Adv.Rep.