Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Rynhart

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided November 28, 2003No. 20020760-CAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partThorne, Judge

T20 I concur with the majority's conclusion that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence under the emergency aid doe-trine. However, we part ways when the majority concludes that Rynhart maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the van and its contents when, following a single car accident, she left it, unsecured and parked on property not owned by Rymhart.1 My reasons for dissenting are threefold: (1) The majority, in summarily deciding that Rynbart did not abandon her expectation of privacy, relies on a series of cases that have little or nothing to do with the issue of…

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. California v. Hodari D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. United States v. ChadwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Oliver v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API