Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gomez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 5, 2007No. F-2005-526Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChapel, J.

T1 The majority disregards settled Oklahoma law which could be used to affirm this unremarkable case, preferring instead to rely on an interpretation of federal law which conflicts with settled law based on the Oklahoma Constitution. Essentially, the majority holds that, despite Oklahoma constitutional law to the contrary, probable cause to search for any reason justifies a search of an entire vehicle and any containers within it. I see no reason to substitute this conclusion for our own settled precedent. The only possible reason I can see for the majority's approach is to allow it to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Lawson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1971
  3. Dennis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1999
  4. Brumfield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2007
  5. Dufries v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006

4 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