Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mazen v. Seidel, 940 P.2d 923.

26 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
See, –200 (1997) (holding that a homeowner forfeits any reasonable expectation of privacy once firefighters enter his house); Ault, 150 Ariz. at 463 (“It is clear that the Fourth Amendment .
State v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶9 Moreover, based on the Arizona Supreme Court’s Officer Stepp was authorized to enter the apartment even without the fire captain’s statement.
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Thomas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“Exigent circumstances are one exception to the warrant requirement and include protective sweeps in response to a probable burglary in progress, a fire or medical emergency, and the likelihood that evidence will be destroyed.”); see also Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978) (stating
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
The doctrine allows police to seize an object “if they are lawfully in a position to view it, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if they have a lawful right of access to it.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374–75 (1993); see also Horton, 496 U.S. at 133–34; Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326–27 (1987)
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 508 (1978) (“A burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry ‘reasonable.’”); (recognizing fire or medical emergency as exigent circumstances justifying warrantless search) (citations omitted).
State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Wilson 333 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(once officers had lawful right of access to enter an area, they could seize contraband in plain view).
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Tarkington 187 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Anthony Shariff Gay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McArthur, 531 U.S. at 331, 121 S. Ct. at 950
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Reyna 71 P.3d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985); , In re Search Warrants C-419847 and C-419848 v. State
Petersen v. City of Mesa 63 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Petersen v. City of Mesa 63 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , (holding warrantless entry of rented storage unit by police and their seizure of contraband after firefighters’ valid initial entry is permitted by both Arizona Constitution and Fourth Amendment); , (finding Article 2, Sec
State v. Juarez 55 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Juarez 55 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, , (holding that police officers’ warrant-less entry and seizure of contraband in “plain view” in a rented storage unit following ini *445 tial lawful entry by fire fighters did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article 2, Section 8)
State v. DeCamp 3 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. DeCamp 3 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 19 In two cases decided after Horton, Kosman, 181 Ariz. at 490 , 892 P.2d at 210 , , the mention of inadvertence itself seems to have been inadvertent.