Legal Opinion

State v. Wagoner

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 14, 2001No. 20,812PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PICKARD, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence entered after this Court’s remand for consideration of the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine. See State v. Wagoner, 1998-NMCA-124, 126 N.M. 9, 966 P.2d 176 (Wagoner I). This case presents us with an opportunity to clarify and distinguish the inevitable discovery and independent source doctrines, which are related, but analytically distinct, exceptions to the exclusionary rule. We also must decide whether Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution will allow…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. State v. BarraganNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. State v. BollSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. TrudelleNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State v. TrudelleNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. State v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2003

38 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