Arizona Supreme Court rulings
The Arizona Supreme Court is the highest state court in Arizona. Its rulings bind all Arizona state courts. Plain-English summaries from Criminal Defense Resources™; general education, not legal advice.
7 rulings, newest first.
State v. Mixton
The Arizona Supreme Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Arizona Constitution's private affairs clause requires a warrant for police to obtain a person's IP address or internet subscriber information from a service provider.
State v. Soto-Fong
The Arizona Supreme Court held that consecutive prison sentences for multiple crimes committed as a juvenile do not violate the Eighth Amendment, even when the total exceeds the person's life expectancy, because the U.S. Supreme Court's juvenile-sentencing cases address sentences for single crimes.
Simpson v. Miller
The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona's rule denying bail to everyone charged with sexual conduct with a minor under 15, when the proof is evident or presumption great, violated due process because it did not require an individualized finding that the person is dangerous.
State v. Peoples
The Arizona Supreme Court held that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his cell phone, even when the phone is left in someone else's home, and that a warrantless search of the phone violated the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Valenzuela
The Arizona Supreme Court held that a DUI arrestee's consent to a blood or breath test is not voluntary under the Fourth Amendment when it follows an officer's statement that Arizona law requires the person to submit. In this case, the evidence was not suppressed because officers had relied in good faith on court decisions in effect at the time.
State v. Spreitz
The Arizona Supreme Court held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be raised in post-conviction relief proceedings (under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32), not on direct appeal. Appellate courts will not decide those claims on direct appeal.
State v. Dessureault
The Arizona Supreme Court held that when a defendant challenges a pretrial identification, the trial court should hold a hearing outside the jury's presence. The State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the pretrial identification was not unduly suggestive, and if it was, that any in-court identification is not tainted by it.