17 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Vargas, 2017-NMSC-029, ¶ 16 , 404 P.3d 416 (reviewing a defendant’s Fourth Amendment argument founded on Birchfield de novo). 1 In Birchfield, the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless breath test may lawfully be administered upon arrest for drunk driving, but “the search incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood sample.” 136 S. Ct. at 2185 . 2017After reviewing the exception's history, the United States Supreme Court began its analysis by observing that, when there is a lack of guidance from the founding era, "we generally determine whether to exempt [on the basis of the search incident to arrest doctrine] a given type of search from the warrant requirement by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." 136 S.Ct. at 2176 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Weidnergreen2 sentences2018State v. Paananen , 2015-NMSC-031 , ¶ 29, 357 P.3d 958 ("One of the most firmly established exceptions to the warrant requirement is the right on the part of the government, always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ); State v. Weidner , 2007-NMCA-063 , ¶ 23, 141 N.M. 582 , 158 P.3d 1025 (stating that the search incident to arrest exception requires the state to prove "that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to th 2018State v. Paananen , 2015-NMSC-031 , ¶ 29, 357 P.3d 958 ("One of the most firmly established exceptions to the warrant requirement is the right on the part of the government, always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ); State v. Weidner , 2007-NMCA-063 , ¶ 23, 141 N.M. 582 , 158 P.3d 1025 (stating that the search incident to arrest exception requires the state to prove "that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to th | 3 | 4 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2007See Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-081, ¶ 11 (noting the observation made in Martinez, 1997-NMCA-048, ¶ 7 , a residence search case considering the search incident to arrest exception, that “the presence at the scene of persons other than the arrestee may justify searching for weapons in their immediate vicinity” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2007See Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-081, ¶ 11 (noting the observation made in Martinez, 1997-NMCA-048, ¶ 7 , a residence search case considering the search incident to arrest exception, that "the presence at the scene of persons other than the arrestee may justify searching for weapons in their immediate vicinity" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2007The Test for Search Incident to Arrest {19} To prove that a search is justified under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement, the State must prove “that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control.” Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 ; accord Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-081 , ¶ 11. 2007Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 ; accord Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 11-12 . {20} The justifications for the search incident to arrest doctrine are officer safety and prevention of concealment or destruction of evidence. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Arredondogreen2 sentences2007The Test for Search Incident to Arrest {19} To prove that a search is justified under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement, the State must prove “that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control.” Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 ; accord Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-081 , ¶ 11. 2007Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 ; accord Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 11-12 . {20} The justifications for the search incident to arrest doctrine are officer safety and prevention of concealment or destruction of evidence. | 3 | 3 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2023This limitation 10 is “consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be 11 strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’” Rowell, 2008- 12 NMSC-041, ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)). 13 {15} In Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held, “[i]f there is no 14 possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers 15 seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are 16 absent and the [search-incident-to-arrest] rule does not apply.” 556 U.S. 332 , 2023This limitation is “consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)). {15} In Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held, “[i]f there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the [search-incident-to-arrest] rule does not apply.” 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Johnsonred2 sentences2017Thus, the United States Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed any argument that a warrantless blood test for a drug other than alcohol, such as marijuana, can be justified under the search incident to arrest exception. {30} The State argues that Birchfield 's holding should not be applied retroactively, but the rule is to the contrary. "[A] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final [.]" Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314 , 328, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (eliminating 2017Thus, the United States Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed any argument that a warrantless blood test for a drug other than alcohol, such as marijuana, can be justified under the search incident to arrest exception. {30} The State argues that Birchfield 's holding should not be applied retroactively, but the rule is to the contrary. "[A] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final [.]" Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314 , 328, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (eliminating | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pittmangreen2 sentences2007Pittman also analyzed under the search incident to arrest doctrine that it was clear the arrested defendant could not reach the vehicle. 2006-NMCA-006, ¶ 23 . {27} These cases lay the following foundations. 2007Pittman also analyzed under the search incident to arrest doctrine that it was clear the arrested defendant could not reach the vehicle. 2006-NMCA-006, ¶ 23 . {27} These cases lay the following foundations. | 2 | 2 |
Chimel v. Californiared2 sentences2007The search incident to arrest doctrine as established in Chimel was that, following a lawful arrest, an officer can search the suspect’s person and the area within his immediate control for weapons or evidentiary items. 395 U.S. at 762-63 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 . 2007The search incident to arrest doctrine as established in Chimel was that, following a lawful arrest, an officer can search the suspect’s person and the area within his immediate control for weapons or evidentiary items. 395 U.S. at 762-63 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 . | 1 | 5 |
Arizona v. Gantgreen2 sentences2023This limitation 10 is “consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be 11 strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’” Rowell, 2008- 12 NMSC-041, ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)). 13 {15} In Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held, “[i]f there is no 14 possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers 15 seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are 16 absent and the [search-incident-to-arrest] rule does not apply.” 556 U.S. 332 , 2023This limitation is “consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)). {15} In Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held, “[i]f there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the [search-incident-to-arrest] rule does not apply.” 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rowellgreen2 sentences2023This limitation is “consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)). {15} In Arizona v. Gant, the United States Supreme Court held, “[i]f there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the [search-incident-to-arrest] rule does not apply.” 556 U.S. 332, 339 (2009). 2022The search incident to arrest exception is considered reasonable “because of the practical need to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence or obtaining access to weapons or instruments of escape, without any requirement of specific probable cause to believe weapons or evidence are present in a particular situation.” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 13 . | 1 | 2 |
Griffith v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2017Thus, the United States Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed any argument that a warrantless blood test for a drug other than alcohol, such as marijuana, can be justified under the search incident to arrest exception. {30} The State argues that Birchfield 's holding should not be applied retroactively, but the rule is to the contrary. "[A] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final [.]" Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314 , 328, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (eliminating 2017Thus, the United States Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed any argument that a warrantless blood test for a drug other than alcohol, such as marijuana, can be justified under the search incident to arrest exception. {30} The State argues that Birchfield 's holding should not be applied retroactively, but the rule is to the contrary. "[A] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final [.]" Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314 , 328, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (eliminating | 1 | 2 |
State v. McCumbergreen2 sentences2017Thus, the United States Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed any argument that a warrantless blood test for a drug other than alcohol, such as marijuana, can be justified under the search incident to arrest exception. {30} The State argues that Birchfield 's holding should not be applied retroactively, but the rule is to the contrary. "[A] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final [.]" Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314 , 328, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (eliminating 2017Thus, the United States Supreme Court appears to have foreclosed any argument that a warrantless blood test for a drug other than alcohol, such as marijuana, can be justified under the search incident to arrest exception. {30} The State argues that Birchfield 's holding should not be applied retroactively, but the rule is to the contrary. "[A] new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final [.]" Griffith v. Kentucky , 479 U.S. 314 , 328, 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (eliminating | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vargasgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Vargas, 2017-NMSC-029, ¶ 16 , 404 P.3d 416 (reviewing a defendant’s Fourth Amendment argument founded on Birchfield de novo). 1 In Birchfield, the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless breath test may lawfully be administered upon arrest for drunk driving, but “the search incident to arrest doctrine does not justify the warrantless taking of a blood sample.” 136 S. Ct. at 2185 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2008See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 . {18} Despite the fact that the search incident to arrest exception is recognized by both the United States Supreme Court and this Court in enforcing our respective Constitutions, our courts are not in lockstep with each other in those interpretations. 2008See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 . {18} Despite the fact that the search incident to arrest exception is recognized by both the United States Supreme Court and this Court in enforcing our respective Constitutions, our courts are not in lockstep with each other in those interpretations. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ortegagreen | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Doegreen2 sentences2007Under the search incident to arrest exception, we recognize that “a person arrested might be concealing a weapon, or that evidence of the crime might be destroyed or concealed.” State v. Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 , 123 N.M. 628 , 944 P.2d 276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999-NMCA-107 , 127 N.M. 752 , 987 P.2d 409 . {19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest fol 2007Under the search incident to arrest exception, we recognize that “a person arrested might be concealing a weapon, or that evidence of the crime might be destroyed or concealed.” State v. Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 , 123 N.M. 628 , 944 P.2d 276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999-NMCA-107 , 127 N.M. 752 , 987 P.2d 409 . {19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest fol | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Paananen
green
2 sentences2023Search Incident to Arrest 4 {8} Here, the State contends that the search of Defendant’s purse was reasonable 5 pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, 6 arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the State to produce 7 particularized “evidence of the presence of a weapon, instrument of escape or 8 destructible evidence.” 9 {9} We recognize that “[o]ne of the most firmly established exceptions to the 10 warrant requirement is the right on the part of the government . . . to search the 11 person of the accused when legally arrested.” State v. Paa 2023Search Incident to Arrest {8} Here, the State contends that the search of Defendant’s purse was reasonable pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the State to produce particularized “evidence of the presence of a weapon, instrument of escape or destructible evidence.” {9} We recognize that “[o]ne of the most firmly established exceptions to the warrant requirement is the right on the part of the government . . . to search the person of the accused when legally arrested.” State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-0 | 4 | 2018–2023 |
State v. Alingog
green
2 sentences2014However, we recognize that “whenever possible, the [sjtate and defendants should be given identical procedural treatment on appeal, including evenhanded application of the rules governing the scope of appellate review.” State v. Alingog, 1993-NMCA-124 , ¶ 24, 116 N.M. 650 , 866 P.2d 378 , rev’d on other grounds, 1994-NMSC-063 , 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 . 2014However, we recognize that “whenever possible, the [s]tate and 4 defendants should be given identical procedural treatment on appeal, including evenhanded application of the rules governing the scope of appellate review.” State v. Alingog, 1993- NMCA-124, ¶ 24, 116 N.M. 650 , 866 P.2d 378 , rev’d on other grounds, 1994-NMSC-063 , 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 . | 3 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Alingog
green
2 sentences2014However, we recognize that “whenever possible, the [sjtate and defendants should be given identical procedural treatment on appeal, including evenhanded application of the rules governing the scope of appellate review.” State v. Alingog, 1993-NMCA-124 , ¶ 24, 116 N.M. 650 , 866 P.2d 378 , rev’d on other grounds, 1994-NMSC-063 , 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 . 2014However, we recognize that “whenever possible, the [sjtate and defendants should be given identical procedural treatment on appeal, including evenhanded application of the rules governing the scope of appellate review.” State v. Alingog, 1993-NMCA-124 , ¶ 24, 116 N.M. 650 , 866 P.2d 378 , rev’d on other grounds, 1994-NMSC-063 , 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 . | 3 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Alingog
green
2 sentences2014However, we recognize that “whenever possible, the [sjtate and defendants should be given identical procedural treatment on appeal, including evenhanded application of the rules governing the scope of appellate review.” State v. Alingog, 1993-NMCA-124 , ¶ 24, 116 N.M. 650 , 866 P.2d 378 , rev’d on other grounds, 1994-NMSC-063 , 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 . 2014However, we recognize that “whenever possible, the [s]tate and 4 defendants should be given identical procedural treatment on appeal, including evenhanded application of the rules governing the scope of appellate review.” State v. Alingog, 1993- NMCA-124, ¶ 24, 116 N.M. 650 , 866 P.2d 378 , rev’d on other grounds, 1994-NMSC-063 , 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 . | 3 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Snyder
green
2 sentences2007State v. Snyder, 1998-NMCA-166, ¶ 8 , 126 N.M. 168 , 967 P.2d 843 (stating that we may affirm the district court on different grounds unless the parties “did not have a fair opportunity to present admissible evidence in the district court concerning the facts on which those grounds depend”). {15} The State also argues that the evidence regarding the weapons is admissible under the independent source doctrine and the search incident to arrest doctrine. 2007State v. Snyder, 1998-NMCA-166, ¶ 8 , 126 N.M. 168 , 967 P.2d 843 (stating that we may affirm the district court on different grounds unless the parties “did not have a fair opportunity to present admissible evidence in the district court concerning the facts on which those grounds depend”). {15} The State also argues that the evidence regarding the weapons is admissible under the independent source doctrine and the search incident to arrest doctrine. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Grijalva
green
2 sentences2022The cases cited, State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 2 , 482 P.3d 125 , State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031 , ¶¶ 3-4, 357 P.3d 958 , Utah v. Streif, 579 U.S. 232 , 239-40 (2016), and State v. Grijalva, 1973-NMCA-061 , ¶ 13, 85 N.M. 127 , 509 P.2d 894 , are either factually distinct from this case, or did not sufficiently analyze the search incident to arrest exception to be of assistance, and thus are inapplicable to our analysis. {15} Officer Spurgeon’s search of Defendant’s backpack without a warrant is not supported by either exception put forth by the State. 2022The cases cited, State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 2 , 482 P.3d 125 , State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031 , ¶¶ 3-4, 357 P.3d 958 , Utah v. Streif, 579 U.S. 232 , 239-40 (2016), and State v. Grijalva, 1973-NMCA-061 , ¶ 13, 85 N.M. 127 , 509 P.2d 894 , are either factually distinct from this case, or did not sufficiently analyze the search incident to arrest exception to be of assistance, and thus are inapplicable to our analysis. {15} Officer Spurgeon’s search of Defendant’s backpack without a warrant is not supported by either exception put forth by the State. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Utah v. Strieff
green
1 sentence2022The cases cited, State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 2 , 482 P.3d 125 , State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031 , ¶¶ 3-4, 357 P.3d 958 , Utah v. Streif, 579 U.S. 232 , 239-40 (2016), and State v. Grijalva, 1973-NMCA-061 , ¶ 13, 85 N.M. 127 , 509 P.2d 894 , are either factually distinct from this case, or did not sufficiently analyze the search incident to arrest exception to be of assistance, and thus are inapplicable to our analysis. {15} Officer Spurgeon’s search of Defendant’s backpack without a warrant is not supported by either exception put forth by the State. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Widmer
green
1 sentence2022The cases cited, State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 2 , 482 P.3d 125 , State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031 , ¶¶ 3-4, 357 P.3d 958 , Utah v. Streif, 579 U.S. 232 , 239-40 (2016), and State v. Grijalva, 1973-NMCA-061 , ¶ 13, 85 N.M. 127 , 509 P.2d 894 , are either factually distinct from this case, or did not sufficiently analyze the search incident to arrest exception to be of assistance, and thus are inapplicable to our analysis. {15} Officer Spurgeon’s search of Defendant’s backpack without a warrant is not supported by either exception put forth by the State. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hospital
green
1 sentence2018First, McNeely did not establish a new right of which Defendant may not have been aware, thus arguably making it unfair to make him stand suit and potentially hold 23 1 importantly, the law, specifically and under facts similar to those present here, was 2 clearly established as of at least 2003, when Marshall I—an on-point Tenth Circuit 3 case—was decided, and certainly no later than 2007, when Marshall v. Columbia 4 Regional Hospital (Marshall II), 474 F.3d 733 (10th Cir. 2007), was decided and 5 expressly held the specific right here at issue to be clearly established. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2010United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 , 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). 2010United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 , 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences2008See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 36 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ; United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). 2008See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 36 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ; United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Ortega
green
2 sentences2007Under the search incident to arrest exception, we recognize that “a person arrested might be concealing a weapon, or that evidence of the crime might be destroyed or concealed.” State v. Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 , 123 N.M. 628 , 944 P.2d 276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999-NMCA-107 , 127 N.M. 752 , 987 P.2d 409 . {19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest fol 2007Under the search incident to arrest exception, we recognize that “a person arrested might be concealing a weapon, or that evidence of the crime might be destroyed or concealed.” State v. Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 , 123 N.M. 628 , 944 P.2d 276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999-NMCA-107 , 127 N.M. 752 , 987 P.2d 409 . {19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest fol | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Steinzig
green
2 sentences2007Under the search incident to arrest exception, we recognize that “a person arrested might be concealing a weapon, or that evidence of the crime might be destroyed or concealed.” State v. Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 , 123 N.M. 628 , 944 P.2d 276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999-NMCA-107 , 127 N.M. 752 , 987 P.2d 409 . {19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest fol 2007Under the search incident to arrest exception, we recognize that “a person arrested might be concealing a weapon, or that evidence of the crime might be destroyed or concealed.” State v. Arredondo, 1997-NMCA-081, ¶ 27 , 123 N.M. 628 , 944 P.2d 276 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Steinzig, 1999-NMCA-107 , 127 N.M. 752 , 987 P.2d 409 . {19} This Court has stated that even if a search occurs before the formal arrest, the search is lawful as long as “the fruits of the search were not necessary to justify the arrest” and “the formal arrest fol | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rawlings v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2007LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 5.4(a) (4th ed.2004) (approving of the rule stated in Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980), that a search incident to arrest is valid “where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, ... so long as the fruits of the search were not necessary to support probable cause to arrest” (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted)). {20} The State proved the elements of the search incident to arrest exception in the present case. 2007LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 5.4(a) (4th ed.2004) (approving of the rule stated in Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 111 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980), that a search incident to arrest is valid “where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, ... so long as the fruits of the search were not necessary to support probable cause to arrest” (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted)). {20} The State proved the elements of the search incident to arrest exception in the present case. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.