Robinson (William) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Robinson (William) v. State

DecidedNovember 12, 2014

Docket65784

StatusUnpublished

This text of Robinson (William) v. State (Robinson (William) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson (William) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

However, we concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary remedy applied and exclusion is not mandated when an officer "relied in good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160, and such reliance appears reasonable." Id. at , P.3d at slip op. at 14. In this case, the district court concluded that the troopers did not act in good faith reliance on then-binding legal precedent but denied Robinson's motion to suppress based on implied consent. Pursuant to Byars, we conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason, in denying Robinson's motion to suppress. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be affirmed on appeal."). Next, Robinson contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of the vehicle. Robinson claims that the inventory search was merely a ruse as important personal property was not listed. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and the legal consequences of the factual findings de novo. Beckman, 129 Nev. at , 305 P.3d at 916. Here, troopers performed an inventory search on a vehicle before it was towed. The troopers included bulk items in the inventory, such as men's clothes and toiletries, but also described with particularity items with a greater value, such as airline tickets, speakers, a cell phone and laptop. Items ejected from the vehicle during the collision were also inventoried. The district court found that the troopers followed department policy when conducting the inventory search and that the troopers administered the search in good faith. The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous, and we conclude the district court did

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ec,, not err by denying Robinson's motion to suppress. See Weintraub v. State, 110 Nev. 287, 288-89, 871 P.2d 339, 340 (1994). Having considered Robinson's contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Porter, District Judge Elko County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

2 The fast track statement submitted in this case fails to comply with NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not contain page numbers. See NRAP 3C(h)(1) (requiring fast track filing to comply with the provisions of NRAP 32(a)(4)-(6)). We caution counsel that future failure to comply with this court's briefing requirements may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A c€12i1,.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

However, we concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary remedy applied and exclusion is not mandated when an officer "relied in good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160, and such reliance appears reasonable." Id. at , P.3d at slip op. at 14. In this case, the district court concluded that the troopers did not act in good faith reliance on then-binding legal precedent but denied Robinson's motion to suppress based on implied consent. Pursuant to Byars, we conclude that the district court reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason, in denying Robinson's motion to suppress. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be affirmed on appeal."). Next, Robinson contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of the vehicle. Robinson claims that the inventory search was merely a ruse as important personal property was not listed. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and the legal consequences of the factual findings de novo. Beckman, 129 Nev. at , 305 P.3d at 916. Here, troopers performed an inventory search on a vehicle before it was towed. The troopers included bulk items in the inventory, such as men's clothes and toiletries, but also described with particularity items with a greater value, such as airline tickets, speakers, a cell phone and laptop. Items ejected from the vehicle during the collision were also inventoried. The district court found that the troopers followed department policy when conducting the inventory search and that the troopers administered the search in good faith. The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous, and we conclude the district court did