State v. Montoya
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHendley, Judge
I disagree with and dissent from the opinions of both Judge Sutin and Judge Lopez regarding the search and seizure question. I agree that defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial.
First, as to Judge Sutin’s opinion: Conspicuously absent from that opinion is the purpose for the inventory and return requirements. Those requirements are first to provide defense counsel access to the warrant, Fitez v. State, 9 Md.App. 137, 262 A.2d 765 (1970); and second, to protect the searched party from having his seized property stolen or misplaced by the police. State v. Cortman, 251 Or. 566, 446…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. VentrescaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- United States v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gilbert v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.