{"id":23760,"date":"2016-09-19T00:05:21","date_gmt":"2016-09-19T05:05:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23760"},"modified":"2016-09-17T16:57:48","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T21:57:48","slug":"nm-drivers-failure-to-produce-proof-of-registration-and-insurance-doesnt-permit-search-of-console","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23760","title":{"rendered":"NM: Driver&#8217;s failure to produce proof of registration and insurance doesn&#8217;t permit search of console"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s failure to produce his registration and proof of insurance during a traffic stop didn\u2019t give the officer justification to search the center console for it himself. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nmcompcomm.us\/nmcases\/nmca\/slips\/CA34,033.pdf\">State v. Howl<\/a>, 2016 N.M. App. LEXIS 82 (July 14, 2016).<\/p>\n<p>Defendant called 911 because his girlfriend was in his house and unresponsive. Police pieced together that he had a penchant for using homemade chloroform to knock her out for sex while she was unconscious. Defendant consented to a search of the house. Officers could have recorded the consent but didn\u2019t and there\u2019s no legal requirement that they do so. He later admitted to another officer he consented. It was voluntary. A witness mentioned that defendant seemed to have a problem with \u201ckiddie porn\u201d in the past. The witness also mentioned the chloroforming and the police found evidence of that. That corroborated the hearsay as to the potential child pornography. The search warrant wasn\u2019t overbroad as to the computers and electronic media to be searched. United States v. Baer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122424 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s failure to produce his registration and proof of insurance during a traffic stop didn\u2019t give the officer justification to search the center console for it himself. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue. State v. Howl, &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23760\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-automobile-exception","category-informant-hearsay"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23760"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23761,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23760\/revisions\/23761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}