Legal Opinion
State v. Rickard
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided August 15, 1994No. 14566, 14591, 14503, 14458 and 14866PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FLORES, Judge.
This opinion addresses five appeals by five Defendants who were convicted of possession of cocaine. Each Defendant was subjected to random urinalysis testing as a condition of probation or parole and tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Subsequently, each Defendant was charged and prosecuted for possession of cocaine. Because Defendants challenge whether their urine test results were privileged information improperly disclosed to law enforcement officials, we consolidate these appeals on our own motion to discuss the question of privilege. Further, on our own…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Virginia Consuelo-GonzalezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Clifford v. Latta v. C. J. FitzharrisCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1976
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. PlouseNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2003
- State v. TellesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
- United States v. Guerrero-HernandezCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- State v. WareNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1994
- State v. RickardNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.