From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
State v. Davis
New Mexico Supreme Court
360 P.3d 1161 (2015)
Facts
New Mexico law-enforcement officials, aided by Army National Guard helicopters, conducted an operation to detect potential marijuana plantations. One of the properties targeted in the operation was a home owned by Norman Davis (defendant). A helicopter observer inspected Davis’s fenced-in backyard by flying approximately 50 feet from the ground. The helicopter kicked up dust, scattered debris, damaged property and vegetation in Davis’s neighborhood, and panicked Davis’s neighbors. After spotting marijuana plants in Davis’s backyard, the helicopter observer directed law-enforcement officers to Davis’s house, where they seized the marijuana plants. Davis was charged with marijuana possession, and he filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the helicopter surveillance had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied Davis’s motion. Davis entered a conditional guilty plea but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion. The court of appeals found the surveillance permissible under the United States Constitution but impermissible under the New Mexico Constitution and reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bosson, J.)
Concurrence (Chavez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
