who he was and what he was doing. Hummons agreed to speak with her and was polite, but appeared nervous and avoided eye contact. Hummons said he was coming from his house; but when asked where he lived, he pointed f Nev., Humboldt County., 542 U.S. 177, 188-89, 124 S.Ct. 2451,159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) (upholding state law requiring disclosure of identity to officers); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (explaining no seizure occurs when police ask to examine i zed the importance of the warrant as an intervening circumstance in attenuating an illegal detention’s taint upon evidence discovered in a search incident to arrest. See Hummons, 225 Ariz. at 257 ¶ 11, 236 P.3d at 1204 (citing United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir.1997)) (<HOLDING>). If the purpose of an illegal stop or seizure
holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant holding existence of arrest warrant compelling case for finding dissipation holding that an officer whose request for a warrant allegedly caused an unconstitutional arrest can be held liable for the arrest where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable