Legal Opinion · Dissent

McDonald v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 22, 2005No. CA CR 03-957Published

1DissentWendell Griffen, Judge

I agree with Judge Neal that the cases cited by the majority do not justify affirmance because in each of those cases, there was a nexus between the vehicle and the arrest that is sorely lacking in the instant case. Therefore, I join his dissent.

I also write separately to emphasize that by affirming a search where there was no nexus between the vehicle and the arresting conduct and where there was no need to safeguard the vehicle or its contents, the majority has created a new and dangerous precedent which seems to allow police to conduct an at-will search of the vehicle of any recent…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MaroneySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. United States v. ChadwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Colorado v. BertineSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

21 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