MARTINEZ VS. STATE
Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 70
Opinion Date: November 7, 2024
Judge: Herndon
Areas of Law: Criminal Law
In 2020, state and federal law enforcement conducted a reverse sting operation in Reno, targeting individuals seeking commercial sex with minors. Jesus Alberto Martinez, Jr. was arrested after he responded to an online advertisement and engaged in text conversations with an undercover officer posing as a 17-year-old sex worker. Martinez was charged with attempted abuse or neglect of a child involving sexual exploitation and soliciting a child for prostitution. He was convicted on both charges following a jury trial.
Martinez appealed, arguing that the government's conduct was outrageous and violated due process, and that the jury instructions on entrapment were improper. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges, and that his rights were violated by the district court's denial of his motion to compel the identity of the person depicted in the online advertisement.
The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction. The court clarified the law on entrapment, emphasizing the importance of predisposition over initial contact. It adopted a six-factor test from United States v. Black to evaluate whether the government's conduct was outrageous. The court concluded that the government's conduct did not violate due process and that the jury instructions on entrapment, while containing an error regarding initial contact, did not warrant reversal. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the charges and determined that the district court did not err in denying Martinez's motion to compel the identity of the person in the advertisement. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2024/86842.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024-11-08-supreme-court-of-nevada-25803171d5&utm_content=text-case-title-1
GILBERT VS. STATE
Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 33
Opinion Date: May 9, 2024
Judge: Cadish
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law
The case involves Jesse Calvin Gilbert, who was pulled over by a law enforcement deputy due to a non-operating license plate light. Gilbert was arrested on an active warrant, and the deputy conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle. During the search, the deputy found a handgun under the driver's seat. Gilbert, an ex-felon, was charged with possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was not a true inventory search but a ruse to conduct an investigatory search.
The district court denied Gilbert's motion, finding that the deputy appropriately impounded the vehicle and the inventory search was reasonable. Gilbert appealed his subsequent conviction based on the search and the unsuppressed evidence.
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that an investigatory motive does not necessarily invalidate an inventory search as long as the search that occurred is the same as the inventory-based search that would have happened absent any such motivation. The court also stated that a court deciding a suppression motion must determine the search's reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances by evaluating the extent to which law enforcement departed from the standardized procedures, whether the scope of the search was as expected in light of the underlying justifications for inventory searches, and whether the inventory produced served the purposes of an inventory search. The court concluded that the search was reasonable and denied Gilbert's motion to suppress.
https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2024/85564.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024-05-10-supreme-court-of-nevada-ff629ddc27&utm_content=text-case-read-more-1
Sisolak v. Polymer80, Inc.
Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30
Opinion Date: April 18, 2024
Judge: Stiglich
Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of several Nevada statutes regulating "ghost guns," or unfinished firearm frames or receivers. The respondent, Polymer80, Inc., a manufacturer of gun-related products, argued that the definition of "unfinished frame or receiver" in the statutes was impermissibly vague, making the statutes unconstitutional. The district court agreed with Polymer80, concluding that the definition did not clearly explain key terms or notify individuals when raw materials would become an unfinished frame or receiver. The court also found that the definition allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada disagreed with the lower court's findings. The court found that the terms used to define "unfinished frame or receiver" had ordinary meanings that provided sufficient notice of what the statutes prohibited. The court also concluded that the statutes were general intent statutes that did not lack a scienter requirement and did not pose a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision, holding that the statutes were not unconstitutionally vague.
https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2024/83999.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024-04-19-supreme-court-of-nevada-b77ec22fe8&utm_content=text-case-read-more-3
78230: State v. Nye, July 30, 2020
Matter: backpack search
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress drugs and drug paraphernalia police discovered while searching her backpack, holding that the district court properly determined that the search of Defendant's backpack was beyond the scope of a permissible search incident to arrest. After officers arrested Defendant, they placed her inside a patrol car, placed her backpack in the trunk of the patrol car, and transported her to jail. Thereafter, the officers searched Defendant's backpack. On appeal, the State argued that the contraband was discovered in a lawful search incident to arrest or, alternatively, would have been inevitably discovered in a lawful inventory of the backpack's contents. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the search incident to arrest was invalid; and (2) because the evidence would not have been discovered through a lawful inventory search, the evidence was not admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine.
Publication: law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2020/78230.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-08-03-supreme-court-of-nevada-41fe801e3a&utm_content=text-case-read-more-1