State v. Kaiser
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWood, Chief Judge
The majority hold that defendant’s arrest was valid; I agree, but not for the reason stated by the majority. The majority do not expressly hold that seizure of defendant’s luggage was valid; however, their discussion implies the seizure was valid. I agree. The majority hold the search of the seized luggage was invalid. I disagree.
A summary of my differences with the majority follows.
1. The majority state that the “keying” of the dogs alone would not establish probable cause to arrest defendant. I disagree. The accuracy of the detection of marijuana by the dogs is not contested. The detection…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Draper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.