State v. Barela

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Barela

541 P.2d 435, 88 N.M. 446

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 23, 1975

DocketNo. 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 541 P.2d 435 (State v. Barela) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Barela, 541 P.2d 435, 88 N.M. 446 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin contrary to § 54 — 11-23(A), N. M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2, 1973 Supp.). He appeals. We affirm.

The only question on appeal that merits consideration is defendant’s claim that the trial court erroneously denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his person.

Defendant was arrested for public drunkenness. This occurred prior to repeal of the offense of drunkenness, § 40A-20-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6). The police officer searched defendant and found a marijuana cigarette and a glasses case which contained heroin.

Defendant contends that the opening of the glasses case was not a permissible search. This claim is a matter of first impression in New Mexico. ■

The Supreme Court of the United States has now held that the full search of the person of the suspect made incident to a lawful custodial arrest did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973).

Having authority to search the glasses case, the right to open it naturally followed.

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.

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