State v. Louthan

¶36 (concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I would hold that the arrest was lawful under the majority’s driving under the influence rationale, that Darrin L. Louthan could raise the search incident to arrest issue before us, that the search incident to arrest was improper under State v. Patton8 and State v. Valdez,9 and that the seizure of the bong was improper. Thus, I concur in part but dissent from the majority’s conclusion, and I would reverse Louthan’s conviction.

¶37 I concurred in the result of State v. Millan10 because the defendant did not move to suppress the evidence below on…