Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona v. Hicks. State of Arizona v. James Thomas Hicks[1] Trial court granted defendant motion to suppress; affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals, 707 P.2d 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985); review denied by Arizona Supreme Court; certiorari granted, 475 U.S. 1107 (1986). Police require probable cause to seize items in plain view. U.S. Const. amend.
Arizona Court of Appeals. The Arizona Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court for the state of Arizona. It is divided into two divisions, with a total of twenty-eight judges on the court: nineteen in Division 1, based in Phoenix, and nine in Division 2, based in Tucson.
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona 's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
June 30, 2029 [ 1 ] The Arizona Supreme Court is the state supreme court of the U.S. state of Arizona. Sitting in the Supreme Court building in downtown Phoenix, the court consists of a chief justice, a vice chief justice, and five associate justices. Each justice is appointed by the governor of Arizona from a list recommended by a bipartisan ...
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court instituted an exclusionary rule exception allowing evidence obtained through a warrantless search to be valid when a police record erroneously indicates the existence of an outstanding warrant due to negligent conduct of a Clerk of Court.
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch v.Arizona was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.
July 29, 2024 at 4:15 PM. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Monday proposed major changes for the U.S. Supreme Court: an enforceable code of ethics, term limits for justices and a ...