Defendant filed a motion to suppress the inventory search of a black zippered bag in his car. At trial, however, he denied the bag was his. He still had standing under the state constitution because of the higher expectation of privacy recognized in this state. (State v. Jim, 2022-NMCA-022, 508 P.3d 937, decided after the trial.) The inventory search of the bag was unnecessary to protect the property. When defendant sought to have someone else take control of the vehicle, the officers denied it. That showed that a search was unnecessary to protect it from others. State v. Sanders, 2024 N.M. App. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 17, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s consistent denial of possession or ownership of the stuff seized in this case shows he had no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus no standing. Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not pursuing a motion to suppress. Ulmer v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8467 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the inventory search of a black zippered bag in his car. At trial, however, he denied the bag was his. He still had standing under the state constitution because of the higher expectation of … Continue reading