Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Manngreen2 sentences2008“A search based upon a valid consent is an exception to the requirement for obtaining a search warrant.” State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985). {13} The federal ground rules for determining the validity of a consent to search were set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). 2008“A search based upon a valid consent is an exception to the requirement for obtaining a search warrant.” State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985). {13} The federal ground rules for determining the validity of a consent to search were set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Floresgreen2 sentences2025“A search based upon a valid consent is an exception to the requirement for obtaining a search warrant.” State v. Flores, 2008-NMCA-074, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 217 , 185 P.3d 1067 . {8} Whether consent to search is voluntary is a question of fact. 2025“A search based upon a valid consent is an exception to the requirement for obtaining a search warrant.” State v. Flores, 2008-NMCA-074, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 217 , 185 P.3d 1067 . {8} Whether consent to search is voluntary is a question of fact. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Davis, 2013-NMSC-028, ¶ 13 , 304 P.3d 10 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baxter v. State
green
2 sentences2016Baxter v. State, 2009 MT 449, ¶ 50 , 224 P.3d 1211 . 2016Baxter v. State, 2009 MT 449, ¶ 50 , 224 P.3d 1211 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
2 sentences2008“A search based upon a valid consent is an exception to the requirement for obtaining a search warrant.” State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985). {13} The federal ground rules for determining the validity of a consent to search were set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). 2008“A search based upon a valid consent is an exception to the requirement for obtaining a search warrant.” State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985). {13} The federal ground rules for determining the validity of a consent to search were set forth in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Diaz
green
2 sentences2005However, “mere status as the owner cannot resolve the question of the validity of the consent.” Diaz, 1996-NMCA-104 , ¶ 12, 122 N.M. 384 , 925 P.2d 4 . 2005However, “mere status as the owner cannot resolve the question of the validity of the consent.” Diaz, 1996-NMCA-104 , ¶ 12, 122 N.M. 384 , 925 P.2d 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Bidegain
green
2 sentences1985State v. Bidegain, 88 N.M. 466 , 541 P.2d 971 (1975). 1985State v. Bidegain, 88 N.M. 466 , 541 P.2d 971 (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.