{"id":7151,"date":"2012-06-23T11:09:25","date_gmt":"2012-05-18T10:02:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-05-18T10:02:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7151","title":{"rendered":"NM: Search incident of pockets in DUI arrest was reasonable because of possibility defendant was under influence of drugs, too"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In an arrest for DUI, a search incident that included opening a dollar bill that was folded in a way to indicate it held cocaine, which defendant then admitted, was reasonable. The officers did know all that defendant was under the influence of. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nmcompcomm.us\/nmcases\/NMCA\/2012\/12ca-041.pdf\">State v. Armendariz-Nunez<\/a>, 2012 NMCA 41, 276 P.3d 963 (2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*13]  We disagree with Defendant&#8217;s argument that the cocaine was not evidence of the DWI crime for which he had been arrested. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 66-8-102(B) (2008) (amended 2010); State v. Aleman, 2008 NMCA 137, 145 N.M. 79, 194 P.3d 110 (affirming the defendant&#8217;s conviction for driving while under the influence of cocaine). While the deputy observed that Defendant smelled of alcohol, there was no indication that other substances could not have contributed to his intoxicated state. As the State points out, both alcohol and marijuana emit a distinct odor, while cocaine and many other controlled substances do not. The discovery of a particular drug on a suspect&#8217;s person could be relevant evidence that the suspect may be under the influence of that drug and, therefore, may be appropriately seized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Police responded to a domestic abuse call and were inside defendant\u2019s house. He was arrested and removed from the house and warrants were obtained. Drugs were found on him when he was booked into the jail. Even if the entry was unconstitutional, which does not have to be decided) the finding of the drugs was sufficiently attenuated from that, and suppression was properly denied. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.va.us\/opinions\/opncavwp\/1010114.pdf\">Echavarry v. Commonwealth<\/a>, 60 Va. App. 177, 725 S.E.2d 151 (2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7151\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}