State v. McDermott
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, Judge.
¶ 1 Timothy McDermott challenges the superior court’s determination that Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-3102(F) (2001) 1 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to A.R.S. § 13-3102(A)(1). 2 Specifically, he presents the questions whether the word “luggage” in § 13-3102(F) includes a “fanny pack” and, alternatively, whether the word “luggage” in subsection (F) as applied to § 13-3102(A)(1) is unconstitutionally vague and therefore violative of due process. For the reasons below, we affirm and remand for further proceedings.
¶2 Two Phoenix police officers…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. ChristianArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- State v. McLambCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
- State v. CottonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. HarmCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Hourani v. Benson HospitalCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro DelgadoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- State v. HamblinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- VERMA v. StuhrCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.