Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Kaiser

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1978No. 3148Published

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

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Draper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959

25 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