Terry is to be established by reference to particular facts necessitating the intrusion. Officer Stewart testified to no such facts once he had the purse. We come to this conclusion not because we disagree with the juvenile court with respect to what the facts are — the facts in this case are not in dispute — but rather because we disagree with the juvenile court as to how the law applies to those facts, and it is our responsibility to make that determination de novo. ¶ 32 Because the warrantless search of the purse was not justified under the circumstances, the marijuana pipe should not have been admitted into evidence, and Officer Stewart’s testimony regarding its discovery should not have been permitted at the hearing. See State v. Hunt, 2 Ariz.App. 6, 12, 406 P.2d 208, 214 (1965) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 33 The finding of delinquency is thus
holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding that an exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applies where the police would have obtained the evidence if no illegality had occurred holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid holding that the exclusionary rule applies to oral evidence adduced from an officers testimony as to what he saw or found pursuant to an illegal search