TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citing references

Opinions citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996)

6,075 citing cases · 50 match your filters

Negative treatment
Depth Newest Oldest Most cited
Majority opinions only
1 2–3 4–9 10+ times cited
  1. State of Arizona v. Dale Lee Evans
    332 P.3d 61 Court of Appeals of ArizonaJuly 31, 2014

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); cf.

  2. State v. Rogers
    924 P.2d 1027 Arizona Supreme CourtSeptember 27, 1996

    See Ornelas v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1660 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1979 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988).

  3. State v. OLM
    224 P.3d 245 Court of Appeals of ArizonaFebruary 12, 2010

    United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), that such determinations are reviewed de novo.

  4. State v. Woods
    342 P.3d 863 Court of Appeals of ArizonaFebruary 3, 2015

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); State v. Teagle, 217 Ariz. 17 , 22 ¶ 19, 170 P.3d 266, 271 (App.2007).

  5. State v. Teagle
    170 P.3d 266 Court of Appeals of ArizonaNovember 1, 2007

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1661, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (internal citations omitted). In making this evaluation, we do "not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities.

  6. State v. Evans
    349 P.3d 205 Arizona Supreme CourtJune 4, 2015

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (noting that “[a]rticulating precisely what ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause’ mean is not possible”).

  7. In re Timothy C.
    978 P.2d 644 Court of Appeals of ArizonaAugust 13, 1998

    United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)), aff'd, 115 *163 F.3d 413 (7th Cir.1997).

  8. State v. Ramsey
    224 P.3d 977 Court of Appeals of ArizonaFebruary 2, 2010

    Fornof, 218 Ariz. 74, 76, ¶ 5 , 179 P.3d 954, 956 (App.2008); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). However, “we defer to the trial court’s findings of fact absent abuse of discretion.” State v.

  9. State v. Blackmore
    925 P.2d 1347 Arizona Supreme CourtAugust 29, 1996

    See Ornelas v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); see, e.g., U.S. v.

  10. State v. Aleman
    109 P.3d 571 Court of Appeals of ArizonaApril 4, 2005

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 920 (1996); State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, 191 Ariz. 182, 186 , 953 P.2d 926, 930 (App.1997).

  11. State v. Hackman
    943 P.2d 865 Court of Appeals of ArizonaMay 23, 1997

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 ,-, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1661-62 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). While we view the *509 evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of upholding the court’s factual findings, we are not bound by its legal conclusions.

  12. State v. Ossana
    18 P.3d 1258 Court of Appeals of ArizonaFebruary 28, 2001

    See also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

  13. State v. Altieri
    951 P.2d 866 Arizona Supreme CourtDecember 23, 1997

    Rogers, 186 Ariz. 508, 510 , 924 P.2d 1027, 1029 (1996) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 919 (1986)).

  14. State v. Kinney
    241 P.3d 914 Court of Appeals of ArizonaOctober 28, 2010

    Rogers, 186 Ariz. 508, 510 , 924 P.2d 1027, 1029 (1996), quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 693 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

  15. State v. Childress
    214 P.3d 422 Court of Appeals of ArizonaJuly 28, 2009

    Rogers, 186 Ariz. at 510 , 924 P.2d at 1029 (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)).

  16. In re Ilono H.
    113 P.3d 696 Court of Appeals of ArizonaJune 17, 2005

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1661 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 918 (1996), quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 544 (1983), quoting Brinegar v.

  17. State v. Cohen
    957 P.2d 1014 Court of Appeals of ArizonaApril 7, 1998

    See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 698-99 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (an appellate court should review de novo ultimate questions of reasonable suspicion and probable cause).

  18. State of Arizona v. Jesus Ramiro Moreno
    340 P.3d 426 Court of Appeals of ArizonaDecember 30, 2014

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

  19. State of Arizona v. Nicholas Olaf Kjolsrud, Loni Kay Kambitsch
    371 P.3d 647 Court of Appeals of ArizonaMarch 18, 2016

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). Thus, it appears Werkheiser’s decision to conduct a separate criminal investigation was based solely on the warrants and Kjolsrud’s involvement in a former case.

  20. State of Arizona v. Anthony Benard Primous
    394 P.3d 646 Arizona Supreme CourtMay 23, 2017

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

  21. In re Roy L.
    4 P.3d 984 Court of Appeals of ArizonaFebruary 3, 2000

    Rogers, 186 Ariz. at 511, 924 P.2d at 1030 (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)).

  22. State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court
    953 P.2d 926 Court of Appeals of ArizonaDecember 9, 1997

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 , — 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). For the reasons stated, we hold the superior court, in reviewing a decision of the trial court, should have considered the law as applied to the facts de novo.

  23. State v. Bonillas
    3 P.3d 1016 Court of Appeals of ArizonaNovember 9, 1999

    Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 920 (1996); Blackmore, 186 Ariz. at 632 , 925 P.2d at 1349 ; State v. Fodor, 179 Ariz. 442, 448 , 880 P.2d 662, 668 (App.1994).

  24. State v. Fornof
    179 P.3d 954 Court of Appeals of ArizonaMarch 25, 2008

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). Evidence derived from a stop not based on reasonable suspicion is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and must be suppressed. Richcreek, 187 Ariz. at 506 , 930 P.2d at 1309 .

  25. State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II
    359 P.3d 1 Court of Appeals of ArizonaJuly 20, 2015

    United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) ("Articulating precisely what 'reasonable suspicion’ and 'probable cause' mean is not possible.”). But all such formulations attempt to distinguish lawful and unlawful activity. .

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list