Legal Opinion

State v. McDermott

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided July 8, 2004No. 1 CA-CR 03-0683PublishedCited by 17 opinions

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

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. State v. ChristianArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State v. McLambCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
  5. State v. CottonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. HarmCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  2. Hourani v. Benson HospitalCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  3. State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro DelgadoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  4. State v. HamblinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  5. VERMA v. StuhrCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009

12 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