Court Opinion

ID: 9611733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:59:51.599179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:16.483945
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
concurring:
I agree that all the items suppressed were properly suppressed and that a dismissal must be granted, but I cannot agree that the dismissal was correctly entered by the trial court. The proper result was reached, but for the wrong reason. Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 249, 468 P.2d 338 (1970).
The district court judge said: “I think the crux of the matter is that there was evidence seized without any warrant issued at any time.” It is apparent that he granted the motion to suppress because he was of the opinion that a search warrant should have been obtained before the officers returned and entered the residence, and because that procedure was not followed, the entire subsequent search and seizure was illegal.
Within the authority of Woerner v. State, 85 Nev. 281, 453 P.2d 1004 (1969), the officers had a duty, upon smelling the odor of marijuana smoke coming from the house, to enter the open door, and upon gaining entry and observing a marijuana like substance on the living room table to seize that evidence and arrest everyone in that room for possession of narcotics. *347An immediate search of those arrested and a search of their immediate surroundings was permissible. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The authority of Woerner does not permit the blanket arrest of persons in other parts of the house. Here the record is silent about the physical location of the arrestees at the time of arrest; therefore the dismissal as to all defendants must be affirmed, but not for the reason announced by the trial court.