Legal Opinion

State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 26, 2016No. CR-15-0222-PRPublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Justice TIMMER,

opinion of the Court:

¶ 1 Although the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits warrantless searches, they are permitted if there is free and voluntary consent to search. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Butler, 232 Ariz. 84, 87 ¶ 13, 302 P.3d 609, 612 (2013). Consent cannot be deemed to be given “freely and voluntarily” if the subject of a search merely acquiesces to a claim of lawful authority. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548-49, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).

¶ 2 Arizona’s implied consent law provides…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-OrozcoArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  2. State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewitArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  3. State v. Don Jacob HavatoneArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  4. State of Arizona v. Robin PeoplesArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  5. State of Arizona v. Javier Francisco NavarroCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016

46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API