Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

U.S. v. Giangola

No. CR 07-0706 JB (D.N.M. Jul. 24, 2008)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
U.S. v. Giangola

4 Citing cases

  1. Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

    3 F. Supp. 3d 1002 (D.N.M. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    The subsequent search of Mocek was also proper. “For a search incident to an arrest to be legitimate, the following must be true: ‘(1) a legitimate basis for the arrest existed before the search, and (2) the arrest followed shortly after the search.’ ” United States v. Giangola, No. CR 07–0706 JB, 2008 WL 6020505, *17 (D.N.M. July 24, 2008) (Browning, J.)(quoting United States v. Anchondo, 156 F.3d 1043, 1045 (10th Cir.1998)).

  2. Mocek v. City of Albuquerque

    No. CIV 11-1009 JB/KBM (D.N.M. Jan. 14, 2013)   Cited 46 times
    Refusing to consider statements that were not "central to [the Plaintiff's] claims"

    Further, "[f]or a search incident to an arrest to be legitimate, the following must be true: '(1) a legitimate basis for the arrest existed before the search, and (2) the arrest followed shortly after the search.'" United States v. Giangola, No. CR 07-0706 JB, 2008 WL 6020505, *17 (D.N.M. July 24, 2008)(Browning, J.)(quoting United States v. Anchondo, 156 F.3d 1043, 1045 (10th Cir. 1998)). The Court concludes that the search incident to Mocek's arrest was valid, because the AAPD officers had probable cause to arrest him, and because, as Mocek alleges, he was searched as soon as he was taken to the AAPD offices, immediately after his arrest.

  3. Tanner v. San Juan Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    864 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D.N.M. 2012)   Cited 49 times
    Following principles discussed by Sixth and Eleventh Circuits regarding officer's failure to intervene where it "seems unfair to hold a secondary officer liable for a primary officer's conduct in a circumstance where the secondary officer had no information available to him or her suggesting that the primary officer acted improperly"

    SeeN.M.S.A.1978, § 66–8–125(B) (“To arrest without warrant, the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds, based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses, to believe the person arrested has committed a crime.”). United States v. Giangola, No. 07–0706, 2008 WL 6020505, at *23 (D.N.M. July 24, 2008)(Browning, J.). Violations of state law do not support a federal cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution.

  4. Tanner v. San Juan Cnty. Sheriff's Office

    No. CIV 11-0328 JB/ACT (D.N.M. Mar. 15, 2012)

    See N.M. S.A.1978, § 66-8-125(B) ("To arrest without warrant, the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds, based on personal investigation which may include information from eyewitnesses, to believe the person arrested has committed a crime.").United States v. Giangola, No. 07-0706, 2008 WL 6020505, at *23 (D.N.M. July 24, 2008)(Browning, J.). Violations of state law do not support a federal cause of action for violations of the United States Constitution.