NM: DWI qualified for citizen’s arrest by non-commissioned officer

Defendant was arrested for DWI by a non-commissioned officer dispatched by the local police department to investigate defendant’s accident. While the officer lacked statutory authority to arrest, the arrest was still valid a citizen’s arrest and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. State v. Slayton, 2009 NMSC 54, 147 N.M. 340, 223 P.3d 337 (2009).

The search warrant for defendant’s house was issued for “mere evidence” (Warden v. Hayden), his green card, to show that he was not always in possession of it, and it was lawful under Rule 41(c)(1). (“A warrant may be issued for any of the following: [¶] (1) evidence of a crime; [¶] (2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed; ….”). United States v. Doueihi, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118693 (S.D. N.Y. December 16, 2009).*

Defendant’s gratuitously participating in the search was evidence of his consent. United States v. Savage, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118696 (S.D. N.Y. December 16, 2009).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to pursue every conceivable inconsistency in the police statements because they were not material and the outcome would not change. United States v. Altamirano-Quintero, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119064 (D. Colo. September 4, 2009)*:

Additionally, the fact that defendant’s erstwhile counsel did not challenge every possible alleged inconsistency between the version of events offered by the police and that understood by defendant is inconsequential. Almost all of the alleged inconsistencies to which the defendant pervicaciously clings involved collateral or imponderous matters. Assuming arguendo that defense counsel had presented the evidence found most relevant by defendant, the result ineluctably would have been the same ….