reasoned privilege (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

reasoned privilege in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2022 2 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Terry v. Ohiogreen
scotus · 1968 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022The Court reasoned that this standard “was consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation[,]’ ” id. ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)), and “provide[s] sufficient latitude in allowing searches incident to arrest where they can be justified on principle, while refusing to broaden exceptions to New Mexico’s constitutional warrant requirement beyond their own justifications.” Id. ¶ 23.

2022The Court reasoned that this standard “was consistent with the established principle that a warrantless search should ‘be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation[,]’ ” id. ¶ 14 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 (1968)), and “provide[s] sufficient latitude in allowing searches incident to arrest where they can be justified on principle, while refusing to broaden exceptions to New Mexico’s constitutional warrant requirement beyond their own justifications.” Id. ¶ 23.

22
State v. Garciagreen
nmctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See generally Rule 11-103(A)(2) NMRA; State v. Garcia, 100 N.M. 120, 123 , 666 P.2d 1267, 1270 (Ct.App.1983) (concluding that the defendant failed to make an offer of proof as required in order to preserve an issue of whether the district court properly excluded testimony).

2006See generally Rule 11-103(A)(2) NMRA; State v. Garcia, 100 N.M. 120, 123 , 666 P.2d 1267, 1270 (Ct.App.1983) (concluding that the defendant failed to make an offer of proof as required in order to preserve an issue of whether the district court properly excluded testimony).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Pennsylvania v. Muniz green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

2011The Court reasoned that the privilege against self-incrimination “is a bar against compelling communications or testimony, but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of real or physical evidence does not violate it.” Id. at 591 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2011The Court reasoned that the privilege against self-incrimination “is a bar against compelling communications or testimony, but that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of real or physical evidence does not violate it.” Id. at 591 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

12011–2011
South Dakota v. Neville green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

1997Id. at 566 , 103 S.Ct. at 924 . 5.

1997Id. at 566 , 103 S.Ct. at 924 . 5.

11997–1997
Buffett v. Jaramillo green
nmctapp · 1993
1 sentence

1996Buffett, at 530-531, 914 P.2d at 1027-1028 .

11996–1996
cluster 279393 green
ca2 · 1968
1 sentence

1979Aimcee, supra. The rationale for this principle is well-stated in American Safety Equipment, supra. The court reasoned that a claim under the antitrust laws is not merely a private matter.

11979–1979
State v. Turnbow green
nm · 1960
2 sentences

1979State v. Turnbow, 67 N.M. 241 , 354 P.2d 533 , 89 A.L.R.2d 461 (1960) states the better reasoned rule to be: Involuntary confessions of accused persons are inadmissible to impeach them as witnesses on the same ground that hearsay and all other incompetent evidence is inadmissible to impeach other witnesses, because they are unworthy of belief.

1979State v. Turnbow, 67 N.M. 241 , 354 P.2d 533 , 89 A.L.R.2d 461 (1960) states the better reasoned rule to be: Involuntary confessions of accused persons are inadmissible to impeach them as witnesses on the same ground that hearsay and all other incompetent evidence is inadmissible to impeach other witnesses, because they are unworthy of belief.

11979–1979

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-31-23 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-31-25.1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-102 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 98 (1975–2026) IL 47 (1975–2026) NY 43 (1965–2025) WA 36 (1970–2022) TX 35 (1967–2023) FL 34 (1977–2023) DC 31 (1978–2021) NJ 25 (1981–2025) MD 21 (1980–2021) CT 21 (1984–2021) AL 21 (1978–2026) ND 19 (1968–2019) CO 18 (1961–2008) IN 18 (1963–2020) KS 17 (1960–2024) PA 17 (1975–2026) WI 16 (1987–2025) OH 16 (1978–2023) MI 15 (1974–2023) UT 15 (1980–2026) NC 14 (1979–2022) AZ 13 (1966–2023) TN 13 (1956–2025) ID 12 (1936–2026) LA 11 (1960–2009) MA 11 (1983–2026) MO 10 (1967–2013) MN 9 (1984–2024) MT 9 (1939–2010) OR 9 (1987–2020) VA 9 (1968–2016) NM 8 (1979–2022) MS 8 (1961–2025) RI 7 (1982–2019) AR 6 (1997–2018) WV 6 (1941–2015) WY 6 (1982–2004) SC 5 (1990–2020) KY 5 (2001–2025) AK 4 (1980–2022) IA 4 (1976–2018) ME 4 (1971–2021) OK 4 (1967–2024) GA 3 (1989–2011) SD 3 (1976–2006) NE 3 (1988–1995) VT 3 (1988–2024) HI 2 (1987–2016) DE 2 (1974–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check