{
  "id": 2830497,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick Tate COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Coleman",
  "decision_date": "1974-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 1475",
  "first_page": "153",
  "last_page": "155",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 153"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "530 P.2d 947"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "399 U.S. 42",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6168334
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "48, 51"
        },
        {
          "page": "1979, 1981"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/399/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. M. 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773120
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0652-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 U.S. 443",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12027286
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/403/0443-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 4575,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.83,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.976424734906377e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46344497304669113
    },
    "sha256": "7c0864df6d6508d967be021b95c37f1c99990d82c35640553533a390678e1464",
    "simhash": "1:20cfbf2791d9d17a",
    "word_count": 745
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick Tate COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nThis is an appeal by the state from an order of the trial court which suppressed the evidence pertaining to a quantity of marijuana found in defendant\u2019s vehicle. The appeal is taken pursuant to \u00a7 21-10-2.-1(B)(2), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1973 Supp.).\nThe state did not challenge the trial court\u2019s findings of fact. It contends that the warrantless search of the defendant\u2019s vehicle and subsequent seizure of marijuana was not in violation of defendant\u2019s constitutional rights. It recognizes that the search was not incident to a lawful arrest, nor pursuant to a valid search warrant, nor with defendant\u2019s consent, nor as an inventory search.\nThe state relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). It specifically contends that the police officers had probable cause to believe that defendant\u2019s vehicle contained contraband and that the facts surrounding the incident constituted exigent circumstances in order to justify an immediate search. In the alternative, it contends that the search and seizure was justified upon probable cause because the marijuana was in plain view.\nFirst, the plain view doctrine does not apply to the facts of this case because both officers testified that the marijuana which forms the subject of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was enclosed in a burlap-like sack. It does not appear from the record that the marijuana debris was seizure. Neither officer could testify that he was able to see inside the bag.\nProbable cause combined with \u201cexigent circumstances\u201d provide the required foundation for the warrantless search. In Re One 1967 Peterbilt Tractor, Etc., 84 N. M. 652, 506 P.2d 1199 (1973). The enforcement officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant\u2019s vehicle did, in fact, contain marijuana. Were \u201cexigent circumstances\u201d present to allow a warrant-less search? No!\nThe trial court found that a Lordsburg city police officer stopped the defendant\u2019s vehicle for speeding on a Sunday. Two other occupants of the vehicle were present. The police officer observed one male passenger in the back seat and one on the passenger side of the front seat of the vehicle. The driver was unable to produce his driver\u2019s license. The passenger riding in front, defendant herein, volunteered that he was the owner of the vehicle and produced a used car warranty made out to his mother and signed by both of them. After some questioning, the defendant was requested to follow the officer in the defendant\u2019s vehicle to the Hidalgo County Sheriff\u2019s office. Defendant did follow. All three occupants entered the Sheriff\u2019s of-' fice and were placed under arrest. Defendant refused to give the Sheriff consent to search the vehicle and was told by the Sheriff that a search warrant would be obtained. The Sheriff began to write an affidavit for a search warrant. Being Sunday, the Sheriff indicated to defendant that it might be several hours before a search warrant could be obtained. It was not obtained because the Sheriff searched the vehicle after obtaining defendant\u2019s consent to search under the threat that the search would be made anyhow. The trial court found that the defendant\u2019s consent to search was given in acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.\nIt is clear that \u201cexigent circumstances\u201d did not exist. \u201cExigent circumstances\u201d exist \u201c . . . where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. . . . [I] f an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant\u2019 for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search. . . . Only in exigent circumstances will the judgment of the police as to probable cause serve as a sufficient authorization for a search.\u201d Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 48, 51, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1979, 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). In the instant case, the car was parked outside the Sheriff\u2019s. office. The defendant and two occupants were in the Sheriff\u2019s office under arrest. Exigent circumstances did not exist.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. C. Serna, Asa Kelly, Jr., Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Silver City, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Frederick H. Sherman, Sherman and Sherman, Deming, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "530 P.2d 947\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick Tate COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 1475.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nDec. 18, 1974.\nE. C. Serna, Asa Kelly, Jr., Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Silver City, for plaintiff-appellant.\nFrederick H. Sherman, Sherman and Sherman, Deming, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0153-01",
  "first_page_order": 179,
  "last_page_order": 181
}