11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2001See also Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147-50 , 870 P.2d at 109-12 (recognizing that "knock and announce" rule, while not compelled under federal law, is required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 447 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1068 (1993) (holding that "the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule is incompatible with the constitutional protection found under Article II, Section 10...."); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217 , 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (concluding that New Mexico's test for determining probable cause "better effectuate[s] the p 2001See also Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147-50 , 870 P.2d at 109-12 (recognizing that "knock and announce" rule, while not compelled under federal law, is required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 447 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1068 (1993) (holding that "the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule is incompatible with the constitutional protection found under Article II, Section 10...."); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217 , 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (concluding that New Mexico's test for determining probable cause "better effectuate[s] the p | 3 | 6 |
Elkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015Herring, 555 U.S. at 139-41 ; see also Elkins v. 18 United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960) (“The [exclusionary] rule is calculated to 6 1 prevent, not to repair. 2015Herring, 555 U.S. at 139-41 ; see also Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960) (“The [exclusionary] rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. | 2 | 2 |
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen2 sentences2018Defendant also argues that unlike the federal exclusionary rule, which only applies "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs," Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 , 363, 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the primary focus of the state exclusionary rule is securing privacy interests, which is achieved by putting individuals in the same position as if the misconduct had not occurred, see State v. Trudelle , 2007-NMCA-066 , ¶ 40, 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 ("The purpose of the state exclusion 2018Defendant also argues that unlike the federal exclusionary rule, which only applies "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs," Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 , 363, 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the primary focus of the state exclusionary rule is securing privacy interests, which is achieved by putting individuals in the same position as if the misconduct had not occurred, see State v. Trudelle , 2007-NMCA-066 , ¶ 40, 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 ("The purpose of the state exclusion | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences1995Similarly, in Gutierrez, our Supreme Court held that the “good-faith” exception to the federal exclusionary rule, first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3415 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), is incompatible with Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. 1995Similarly, in Gutierrez, our Supreme Court held that the “good-faith” exception to the federal exclusionary rule, first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 , 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3415 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), is incompatible with Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. | 1 | 2 |
Penn v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti 2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eubanksgreen2 sentences2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti 2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lyongreen2 sentences2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti 2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Attawaygreen2 sentences2001See also Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147-50 , 870 P.2d at 109-12 (recognizing that "knock and announce" rule, while not compelled under federal law, is required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 447 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1068 (1993) (holding that "the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule is incompatible with the constitutional protection found under Article II, Section 10...."); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217 , 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (concluding that New Mexico's test for determining probable cause "better effectuate[s] the p 2001See also Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147-50 , 870 P.2d at 109-12 (recognizing that "knock and announce" rule, while not compelled under federal law, is required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 447 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1068 (1993) (holding that "the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule is incompatible with the constitutional protection found under Article II, Section 10...."); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217 , 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (concluding that New Mexico's test for determining probable cause "better effectuate[s] the p | 1 | 1 |
State v. Snydergreen2 sentences2001See Snyder, 1998-NMCA-166, ¶ 15 , 126 N.M. 168 , 967 P.2d 843 (concluding that, unlike the federal exclusionary rule, "New Mexico's exclusionary rule is not based on the rationale that suppression of tainted evidence is warranted only if such suppression is likely to alter the behavior or polices of law enforcement officials"). 2001See Snyder, 1998-NMCA-166, ¶ 15 , 126 N.M. 168 , 967 P.2d 843 (concluding that, unlike the federal exclusionary rule, "New Mexico's exclusionary rule is not based on the rationale that suppression of tainted evidence is warranted only if such suppression is likely to alter the behavior or polices of law enforcement officials"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cordovagreen2 sentences2001See also Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147-50 , 870 P.2d at 109-12 (recognizing that "knock and announce" rule, while not compelled under federal law, is required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 447 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1068 (1993) (holding that "the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule is incompatible with the constitutional protection found under Article II, Section 10...."); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217 , 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (concluding that New Mexico's test for determining probable cause "better effectuate[s] the p 2001See also Attaway, 117 N.M. at 147-50 , 870 P.2d at 109-12 (recognizing that "knock and announce" rule, while not compelled under federal law, is required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 447 , 863 P.2d 1052, 1068 (1993) (holding that "the good-faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule is incompatible with the constitutional protection found under Article II, Section 10...."); State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 217 , 784 P.2d 30, 36 (1989) (concluding that New Mexico's test for determining probable cause "better effectuate[s] the p | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences2001See id. at 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613 . {20} Because the federal exclusionary rule is based on a deterrence rationale, where exclusion will not deter misconduct, the rule will not be applied. 2001See id. at 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613 . {20} Because the federal exclusionary rule is based on a deterrence rationale, where exclusion will not deter misconduct, the rule will not be applied. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fidlergreen2 sentences1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- 1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marquartgreen2 sentences1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- 1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- | 1 | 1 |
Breithaupt v. Abramgreen2 sentences1993See State v. Dillon, 34 N.M. 366, 375 , 281 P. 474, 478 (1929) (refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks); see also Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 388-89 , 271 P.2d 827, 829 (1954) (not so holding, but noting that United States Supreme Court in Wolf held the due process clause was not violated by admission in state court of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment), aff'd, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). 1993See State v. Dillon, 34 N.M. 366, 375 , 281 P. 474, 478 (1929) (refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks); see also Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 388-89 , 271 P.2d 827, 829 (1954) (not so holding, but noting that United States Supreme Court in Wolf held the due process clause was not violated by admission in state court of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment), aff'd, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dillongreen2 sentences1993See State v. Dillon, 34 N.M. 366, 375 , 281 P. 474, 478 (1929) (refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks); see also Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 388-89 , 271 P.2d 827, 829 (1954) (not so holding, but noting that United States Supreme Court in Wolf held the due process clause was not violated by admission in state court of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment), aff'd, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). 1993See State v. Dillon, 34 N.M. 366, 375 , 281 P. 474, 478 (1929) (refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks); see also Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 388-89 , 271 P.2d 827, 829 (1954) (not so holding, but noting that United States Supreme Court in Wolf held the due process clause was not violated by admission in state court of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment), aff'd, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
Breithaupt v. Abramgreen2 sentences1993See State v. Dillon, 34 N.M. 366, 375 , 281 P. 474, 478 (1929) (refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks); see also Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 388-89 , 271 P.2d 827, 829 (1954) (not so holding, but noting that United States Supreme Court in Wolf held the due process clause was not violated by admission in state court of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment), aff'd, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). 1993See State v. Dillon, 34 N.M. 366, 375 , 281 P. 474, 478 (1929) (refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks); see also Breithaupt v. Abram, 58 N.M. 385, 388-89 , 271 P.2d 827, 829 (1954) (not so holding, but noting that United States Supreme Court in Wolf held the due process clause was not violated by admission in state court of evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment), aff'd, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Powellgreen2 sentences1993The primary justification for the exclusionary rule then is the deterrence of police conduct that violates Fourth Amendment rights.” Id. at 288-89 , 657 P.2d at 615 -16 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 485, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048, 3048 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)). 1993The primary justification for the exclusionary rule then is the deterrence of police conduct that violates Fourth Amendment rights.” Id. at 288-89 , 657 P.2d at 615 -16 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 485, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048, 3048 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheridangreen1 sentence1993See Sheridan, 96 N.W. at 731 ; Slamon, 50 A. at 1097 . | 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. Trudelle
green
2 sentences2018Defendant also argues that unlike the federal exclusionary rule, which only applies "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs," Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 , 363, 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the primary focus of the state exclusionary rule is securing privacy interests, which is achieved by putting individuals in the same position as if the misconduct had not occurred, see State v. Trudelle , 2007-NMCA-066 , ¶ 40, 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 ("The purpose of the state exclusion 2018Defendant also argues that unlike the federal exclusionary rule, which only applies "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs," Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 , 363, 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the primary focus of the state exclusionary rule is securing privacy interests, which is achieved by putting individuals in the same position as if the misconduct had not occurred, see State v. Trudelle , 2007-NMCA-066 , ¶ 40, 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 ("The purpose of the state exclusion | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Trudelle
green
2 sentences2018Defendant also argues that unlike the federal exclusionary rule, which only applies “where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs,” Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the primary focus of the state exclusionary rule is securing privacy interests, which is achieved by putting individuals in the same position as if the misconduct had not occurred, see State v. Trudelle, 2007-NMCA-066, ¶ 40 , 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 (“The purpose of the state exclusionary rule[, to ensure freedom from unr 2018Defendant also argues that unlike the federal exclusionary rule, which only applies "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs," Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott , 524 U.S. 357 , 363, 118 S.Ct. 2014 , 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the primary focus of the state exclusionary rule is securing privacy interests, which is achieved by putting individuals in the same position as if the misconduct had not occurred, see State v. Trudelle , 2007-NMCA-066 , ¶ 40, 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 ("The purpose of the state exclusion | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Herring v. United States
green
2 sentences2015Herring, 555 U.S. at 141 ; see also State v. Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-062 , ¶ 31, 116 N.M. 431 , 863 P.2d 1052 . 2015Herring, 555 U.S. at 139-41 ; see also Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960) (“The [exclusionary] rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Segura v. United States
green
2 sentences2001“The suppression or exclusionary rule is a judicially prescribed remedial measure and as “with any remedial device, the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously sei-ved.”’ Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (quoting Calandra, 414 U.S. at 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613 ). {21} The independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule where evidence is legally seized after an illegal search. 2001“The suppression or exclusionary rule is a judicially prescribed remedial measure and as “with any remedial device, the application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously sei-ved.”’ Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 , 104 S.Ct. 3380 , 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (quoting Calandra, 414 U.S. at 348 , 94 S.Ct. 613 ). {21} The independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule where evidence is legally seized after an illegal search. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Mollica
green
2 sentences1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution “focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.” Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- 1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Commonwealth v. Cryer
green
2 sentences1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution “focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.” Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- 1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Gallegos
green
2 sentences1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution “focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.” Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- 1998See Fidler, 29 Ill.Dec. 51 , 391 N.E.2d at 211 ; Gallegos, 874 P.2d at 651 ; Cryer, 689 N.E.2d at 813 ; Mollica, 554 A.2d at 1327 . {15} However, unlike the federal exclusionary rule and the laws of some other states, our approach to the exclusionary rule under the New Mexico Constitution "focuses not on deterrence or judicial integrity, nor do we propose a judicial remedy; instead, our focus is to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Gutierrez, 116 N.M. at 446 , 863 P.2d at 1067 ; see also Marquart, 1997-NMCA- | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1993The exclusionary rule saw its genesis in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), when the Court, in vivid, but oblique language, explained its rationale for excluding from trial evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment: 8 If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Co 1993The exclusionary rule saw its genesis in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), when the Court, in vivid, but oblique language, explained its rationale for excluding from trial evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment: 8 If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Co | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Snedeker
green
2 sentences1993The primary justification for the exclusionary rule then is the deterrence of police conduct that violates Fourth Amendment rights.” Id. at 288-89 , 657 P.2d at 615 -16 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 485, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048, 3048 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)). 1993The primary justification for the exclusionary rule then is the deterrence of police conduct that violates Fourth Amendment rights.” Id. at 288-89 , 657 P.2d at 615 -16 (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 485, 486 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048, 3048 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Slamon
green
1 sentence1993See Sheridan, 96 N.W. at 731 ; Slamon, 50 A. at 1097 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.