Court Opinion

ID: 9551607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:56:13.219807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:17.275623
License: Public Domain

Thompson, C. J.,
dissenting:
I would set aside this conviction on the authority of Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364 (1964), and Thurlow v. State, 81 Nev. 510, 406 P.2d 918 (1965). A warrantless search of *107the defendant’s car at a time when he was in jail and at a place remote from the place of his lawful arrest is not constitutionally permissible. I find no suggestion in the search and seizure opinions of the United States Supreme Court that securing an inventory of items in the defendant’s car somehow makes those items constitutional evidence in a later trial for a crime wholly unrelated to the initial arrest. Such a notion completely destroys the rationale of Preston and, I think, is a transparent effort to avoid its doctrine.
I dissent.