Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court, 744 P.2d 669.

52 citing documents.

State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Reyes v. Hon mcclennen/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
Superior Court, , (holding that a person arrested for DUI has the right to consult an attorney before taking a breath test when such consultation would not delay or interfere with the investigation or test taking); State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563, 571 (Minn.2013) (“The fact that [defendant] consulted wit
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Luis Armando Peraza 366 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶8 Despite the two-hour window, a defendant is entitled to the advice of counsel when in custody, “and the state may not unreasonably restrict that right.” see Ariz. R. Crim.
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Superior Court, he argues the state failed to establish that his request for counsel would have hindered the ongoing investigation of his crimes.3 The state, in turn, cites 3Nevarez also disputes the trial court’s statement in its ruling that the remedy for such a violation “would be a suppre
State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Penney 270 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Superior Court, , (“It is only when the exercise of [the right to counsel] will hinder an ongoing investigation that the right to an attorney must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police.”).
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
P., provides that a suspect is entitled to the advice of counsel “as soon as feasible after [he or she] is taken into custody.” “[I]t is only when the exercise of that right will hinder an ongoing investigation that the right to an attorney must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police.”
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
discuss the right to counsel as a Sixth Amendment right even at the investigatory stage, 3 here the police indisputably met their obligations regarding the DUI suspect’
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stanley 172 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
as soon as feasible after a defendant is taken into custody.” The Arizona Supreme Court has made it clear that “in a criminal DUI case, the accused has the right to consult with an attorney, if doing so does not disrupt the investigation.” , , (“It is only when the exercise of that right [to counsel under Rule 6.1] will hinder an ongoing investigation that the right to an attorney must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police.”).
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
as soon as feasible after [being] taken into custody.” This court has stated that, regarding a suspect in custody, the state may deny the right to consult with an attorney “only when the exercise of that right will hinder an ongoing investigation.”
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Tornabene v. Bonine Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department 54 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(“while the accused does not have the right to interrupt a continuing investigation in order to consult with an attorney, if there is no disruption of the investigation, the defendant may exercise the right to counsel”).
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
P., 16A A.R.S., Rosengren had “the right to consult in private with an attorney, or the attorney’s agent, as soon as feasible after [he was] taken into custody.” 2 That rule “recognizes the federal and state constitutional right to counsel.”
State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(refusal to allow defendant to call attorney before testing violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel); , (defendant has right to consult with attorney as long as contact does not interfere with the investigation); , (defendant has right to talk to attorney in private)
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
*485 , -10 , -25 (1982).
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Lee 908 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Juarez, , , , in support of the trial court’s suppression order.
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
5 The Arizona Supreme Court has made it clear that, in a criminal DUI case, “[i]t is only when the exercise of that right will hinder an ongoing investigation that the right to an attorney must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police.” , (citations omitted).
State v. Thornton 837 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Thornton 837 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Thus the trial court should suppress evidence of a breath test refusal if the police unnecessarily deny a suspect’s request to speak with an attorney prior to the test, , or if an officer instructs a suspect that no contact with an attorney is allowed prior to the test
State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
State v. Schaaf 819 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1991
(defendant entitled to assistance of counsel at every critical stage of criminal proceedings); , (person is always entitled to assistance of an attorney, whether in custody or not); rule 6.1(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Werner v. Prins 812 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(section 28-694 does not require relation back of BAC to time of driving to sustain civil license suspension); Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court , (in criminal cases brought pursuant to section 28-692, defendant has right to consult with attorney prior to taking chemical breath test if DUI investigation will not be unduly delayed) , (driver has no right to consult with attorney prior
Saenz v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Saenz v. Rodriguez 788 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress the intoxilyzer results, arguing that he was erroneously advised that he did not have the right to consult with an attorney before taking the test, and relying on the supreme court’s
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
The court granted Elsbury’s pretrial motion to suppress the first breath test apparently and correctly (we believe) because it found a
State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Superior Court 763 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The real party in interest argues that, while the language of the affidavit may comply with the Kunzler decisions of the supreme court, , , the language is confusing and makes it impossible for a defendant to knowingly exercise his right to counsel.
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
our supreme court stated that it is only when the exercise of the right to counsel “will hinder an ongoing investigation that the right to an attorney must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police.” Id.
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR PIMA C. 744 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1987
Kunzler v. Miller 744 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1987
Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987