Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lee, 959 P.2d 799.

62 citing documents.

State v. Quintero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Ketchner, 236 Ariz. at 264-65, ¶¶ 15-18 (-45, ¶ 10 (1998)); State v. Fuqua, 1 CA-CR 16-0289, 2017 WL 3599760, at *7, ¶ 34 (Ariz. App. Aug.
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Driffin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶17 “A drug courier profile is a loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors used by police officers to explain their reasons for stopping and questioning persons about possible illegal drug activity.” ¶ 10 (1998).
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 10 (1998) (cleaned up).
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶14 “A drug courier profile is a loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors” that are “typically displayed by persons trafficking in illegal drugs.” ¶ 10 (1998).
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶31 “A drug courier profile is a loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors used by police officers to explain their reasons for stopping and questioning persons about possible illegal drug activity.” ¶ 10 (1998).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“A drug courier profile is a loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors used by police officers to explain their reasons for stopping and questioning persons about possible illegal drug activity.” ¶ 10 (1998).
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Valvano Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See, –73, ¶¶ 23–24 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (1998)).
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
typically displayed by persons trafficking in illegal drugs.” ¶ 10 (1998) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hines Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –73 ¶¶ 23– 24 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (1998)).
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Norman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –73 ¶¶ 23–24 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (1998)).
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶24 “[P]rofile evidence cannot be used as substantive proof of guilt because of the ‘risk that a defendant will be convicted not for what he did but for what others are doing.’” Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶ 22 (2018) ( ¶ 12 (1998)).
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lincourt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund 431 P.3d 181 Ariz. 2018
¶¶ 6–7 (1998) (citing Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Erick Antonio Escalante 425 P.3d 1078 Ariz. 2018
¶ 14 (2017); ¶ 10 (1998).
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Tracey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶21 In the drug crime context, our supreme court has described drug courier profile evidence as an “informal,” “abstract,” and “loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors used by police officers to explain their reasons for stopping and questioning persons about possible illegal drug activity.” ¶ 10 (1998).
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Suazo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Indeed, Suazo argues the State presented testimony that “created a high risk that the jury would convict” him, not for his own conduct, but for the conduct of others.
State of Arizona v. Mark Haskie, Jr. 399 P.3d 657 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Mark Haskie, Jr. 399 P.3d 657 Ariz. 2017
State v. Escalante 396 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Escalante 396 P.3d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15 Drug courier profile evidence informally or abstractly describes characteristics “displayed by persons trafficking in illegal drugs.” ¶ 10 , (citations omitted).
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
typically displayed by persons trafficking in illegal drugs.” , quoting Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P.2d 799 (1998), Appellant contends the expert’s testimony was inadmissible profiling evidence.
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Haskie 378 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“Profile evidence tends to show that a defendant possesses one or more of an ‘“informal compilation of characteristics” or an “abstract of characteristics” typically displayed by persons engaged in a particular kind of activity.” Ketchner, 236 Ariz. at 264, ¶ 15 (-45, ¶ 10 (1998)).
State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Distinguished State v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
State v. Ketchner 339 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2014
544-45 ¶ 10, -02 (1998) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 493 , 103 S.Ct.
State of Arizona v. Darrell Bryant Ketchner Ariz. 2014
–45 ¶ 10, –02 (1998) (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 493 (1983); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440-41 (1980)) (describing drug-courier profiles).
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Garcia-Quintana 321 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
I. Modus Operandi and Drug Courier Profile Evidence ¶11 “A drug courier profile is a loose assortment of general, often contradictory, characteristics and behaviors used by police officers to explain their reasons for stopping and questioning persons about possible illegal drug activity.” ¶ 10
State v. Gonzalez 278 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012