doctrine to other situations. See, e.g., State v. Guillen, 223 Ariz. 314, 317 ¶ 14, 223 P.3d 658, 661 (2010) (applying attenuation doctrine to consent search following allegedly illegal seax’ch); State v. Blackmore, 186 Ariz. 630, 634-35, 925 P.2d 1347, 1351-52 (1996) (upholding search following allegedly illegal arrest); State v. Miller, 186 Ariz. 314, 320-21, 921 P.2d 1151, 1157-58 (1996) (upholding admission of statements made after illegal arrest). ¶ 10 The court of appeals correctly determined that the first Brown factor favored suppression. The officer even reasonable suspicion, by discovering a valid warrant, gains probable cause not just to detain, but to arrest. Cf Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 568-69, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971) (<HOLDING>). If the warrant is valid, the arrest is valid
holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding under new york law that a grand jury indictment does not create a presumption of probable cause for false arrest claims holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding that merely traveling with drug dealers did not create probable cause at time of defendants arrest