NM: State had to support search incident to arrest of def’s purse at suppression hearing and didn’t

Defendant’s purse over the shoulder was not part of her person. It was removed from her and later searched incident to arrest. The state failed to support the search incident doctrine at the suppression hearing of where the purse was when it was searched in relation to her. State v. Ortiz, 2023 N.M. LEXIS 190 (Sep. 18, 2023).

The officer’s entering a dwelling and saying “come over here” was not consent. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Roubideaux, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164805 (D.S.D. Aug. 29, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (D.S.D. Sep. 13, 2023).*

Not reasonable suspicion: “The State contends that Rubald had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Maxfield was involved in the robbery because he knew that (i) two Black men had committed a robbery, (ii) an officer fired shots at the van in which the suspects fled, (iii) the van stopped, (iv) its doors were left open and proceeds from the robbery were recovered from the van and Maxfield, (v) Maxfield was the only person in the general area where the suspects were known to have fled, and (vi) Maxfield was sweating and out of breath.” When police stopped him, he was cooperative. It doesn’t rise to reasonable suspicion. People v. Maxfield, 2023 IL App (1st) 151965-B (Sep. 15, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.