10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Dakota v. Oppermangreen2 sentences2023See Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063, ¶ 6 ; see also Jim, 2022-NMCA-022 , ¶ 8 (“Nearly fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court legitimized the ‘routine practice of securing and inventorying’ the contents of an automobile after it had been impounded.” (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976)). {4} Our Supreme Court has concluded that for the inventory search exception to apply under the Fourth Amendment, “there must be some nexus between the arrest and the reason for the impounding,” but “that nexus need only be reasonable.” State v. Williams, 1982-NMSC-041 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 634 2021Reasonableness {22} Turning to the final inventory search requirement, we employ three considerations articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976), to assess if the inventory search was reasonable. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2023See Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063, ¶ 6 ; see also Jim, 2022-NMCA-022 , ¶ 8 (“Nearly fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court legitimized the ‘routine practice of securing and inventorying’ the contents of an automobile after it had been impounded.” (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976)). {4} Our Supreme Court has concluded that for the inventory search exception to apply under the Fourth Amendment, “there must be some nexus between the arrest and the reason for the impounding,” but “that nexus need only be reasonable.” State v. Williams, 1982-NMSC-041 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 634 2023See Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063, ¶ 6 ; see also Jim, 2022-NMCA-022 , ¶ 8 (“Nearly fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court legitimized the ‘routine practice of securing and inventorying’ the contents of an automobile after it had been impounded.” (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976)). {4} Our Supreme Court has concluded that for the inventory search exception to apply under the Fourth Amendment, “there must be some nexus between the arrest and the reason for the impounding,” but “that nexus need only be reasonable.” State v. Williams, 1982-NMSC-041 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 634 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017The Court of Appeals concluded that the inventory search that occurred in this case was invalid because Defendant Wesley Davis did not possess the backpack searched at the time of arrest as the backpack was not “on his person or in his physical possession . . . .” State v. Davis, 2016-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 1, 10-11 , 387 P.3d 274 . 2017Balderas, Attorney General 13 Jane A. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Petitioner 16 Law Works, LLC 17 John A. McCall 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Respondent 1 OPINION 2 NAKAMURA, Chief Justice. 3 {1} This case concerns the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. 4 The Court of Appeals concluded that the inventory search that occurred in this case 5 was invalid because Defendant Wesley Davis did not possess the backpack searched 6 at the time of arrest as the backpack was not “on his person or in his physical 7 possession . . . .” State v. Davis, 2016-NM | 2 | 2 |
State v. Weidnergreen1 sentence2023See Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063, ¶ 6 ; see also Jim, 2022-NMCA-022 , ¶ 8 (“Nearly fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court legitimized the ‘routine practice of securing and inventorying’ the contents of an automobile after it had been impounded.” (quoting South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 369 (1976)). {4} Our Supreme Court has concluded that for the inventory search exception to apply under the Fourth Amendment, “there must be some nexus between the arrest and the reason for the impounding,” but “that nexus need only be reasonable.” State v. Williams, 1982-NMSC-041 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 634 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tollardogreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Barragan, 2001- 7 NMCA-086, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 281 , 34 P.3d 1157 (declining to consider an inevitable 8 discovery argument where the State failed to present evidence that a search would 9 have been conducted pursuant to standard inventory procedure), overruled on other 10 grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n. 6, 275 P.3d 110 . 11 {6} In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Defendant had a 12 reasonable expectation of privacy in her wallet. 2014See, e.g., State v. Barragan, 2001- 7 NMCA-086, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 281 , 34 P.3d 1157 (declining to consider an inevitable 8 discovery argument where the State failed to present evidence that a search would 9 have been conducted pursuant to standard inventory procedure), overruled on other 10 grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n. 6, 275 P.3d 110 . 11 {6} In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Defendant had a 12 reasonable expectation of privacy in her wallet. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barragangreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Barragan, 2001- 7 NMCA-086, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 281 , 34 P.3d 1157 (declining to consider an inevitable 8 discovery argument where the State failed to present evidence that a search would 9 have been conducted pursuant to standard inventory procedure), overruled on other 10 grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n. 6, 275 P.3d 110 . 11 {6} In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Defendant had a 12 reasonable expectation of privacy in her wallet. 2014See, e.g., State v. Barragan, 2001- 7 NMCA-086, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 281 , 34 P.3d 1157 (declining to consider an inevitable 8 discovery argument where the State failed to present evidence that a search would 9 have been conducted pursuant to standard inventory procedure), overruled on other 10 grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n. 6, 275 P.3d 110 . 11 {6} In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Defendant had a 12 reasonable expectation of privacy in her wallet. | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Wellsgreen2 sentences1993See Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); State v. Shaw, 115 N.M. 174 , 848 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1993). 1993See Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); State v. Shaw, 115 N.M. 174 , 848 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Gleicher v. Turnergreen1 sentence1993See State v. Williams, 97 N.M. 634, 636 , 642 P.2d 1093, 1095 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 845 , 103 S.Ct. 101 , 74 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Kansasgreen1 sentence1993See State v. Williams, 97 N.M. 634, 636 , 642 P.2d 1093, 1095 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 845 , 103 S.Ct. 101 , 74 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Leavittgreen1 sentence1993See State v. Williams, 97 N.M. 634, 636 , 642 P.2d 1093, 1095 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 845 , 103 S.Ct. 101 , 74 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). | 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. Cardenas-Alvarez
green
2 sentences2022In Gomez, our Supreme Court recognized that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, like the inventory search exception at issue here, “was based, in part, on the notion that a motorist has a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile.” Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 15 . 2022In Gomez, our Supreme Court recognized that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, like the inventory search exception at issue here, “was based, in part, on the notion that a motorist has a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile.” Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 15 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2021State v. Shaw, 1993-NMCA-016 , ¶ 10, 115 N.M. 174 , 848 P.2d 1101 . 2021State v. Shaw, 1993-NMCA-016 , ¶ 10, 115 N.M. 174 , 848 P.2d 1101 . | 2 | 1993–2021 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2023If a defendant possesses property at the time of an arrest, “then a reasonable nexus exist[s] between the arrest and the seizure and inventory search of the [property].” State v. Davis, 2018-NMSC-001, ¶ 16 , 408 P.3d 506 . “[A] defendant ‘possesses’ any object that the defendant loses control over as a consequence of arrest and where that loss of control gives rise to the possibility that the object might be lost, stolen, or destroyed and the police potentially held liable for the loss, theft, or destruction.” Id. ¶ 18 (emphasis added). {5} Here, there is a reasonable nexus between Defendant’s | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2016We therefore only review whether the State has satisfied the requirements of this exception. {7} In examining the denial of a motion to suppress, “we observe the distinction between factual determinations, which are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review and application of law to the facts, which is subject to de novo review.” State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-127, ¶ 7 , 147 N.M. 364 , 223 P.3d 361 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2016We therefore only review whether the State has satisfied the requirements of this exception. {7} In examining the denial of a motion to suppress, “we observe the distinction between factual determinations, which are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review and application of law to the facts, which is subject to de novo review.” State v. Lopez, 2009-NMCA-127, ¶ 7 , 147 N.M. 364 , 223 P.3d 361 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Boswell
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.