State v. Ahumada
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ECKERSTROM, Judge.
¶ 1 After a jury trial, appellant Lando Ahu-mada was convicted of possessing both the narcotic drug cocaine and drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to substantially mitigated, concurrent prison terms of 2.25 and .75 years. He argues the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the cocaine found in his pocket because the officer’s search exceeded the scope of the consent Ahumada had given. He also argues the search was unlawful under the “plain-feel” doctrine. Because we conclude the evidence was lawfully seized under that doctrine, we affirm the trial…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Adams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State of Arizona v. Rosa Elene BecerraCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- State of Arizona v. Feliciano Ontiveros-LoyaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco IICourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco IICourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco IICourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.