Rodriguez v. Arellano
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FIDEL, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 When a criminal defendant moves to suppress the fruits of an allegedly illegal search, our Rules of Criminal Procedure allocate to defendant the initial burden of going forward. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 16.2(b). The question presented in this special action is whether a defendant may satisfy this burden by proving the lack of a warrant. We answer in the affirmative.
Background
¶2 After the State filed an information charging David Rodriguez (Defendant) with various drug offenses, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of an allegedly…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- State v. FisherArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. HydeArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. CastanedaArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- State v. GreeneArizona Supreme Court · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. ValleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- State v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
- State v. OLMCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- State v. GantCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.