Latest Case: New Hampshire v. Perez (Constitutional Law)

What’s at Stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue? What the Equal Protection Clause Means in the Context of Classifications Based on Religiosity

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis emeritus professor Alan E. Brownstein comment on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that raises the question whether a religiously neutral student-aid program in Montana that affords students the choice of attending religious schools violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Amar and Brownstein express no opinion as to whether the courts’ often-expressed concerns about striking down invidiously motivated laws can be effectively overcome, but they contend that jurists who reject invalidating invidiously motivated laws must explain why reasons sufficient in other contexts are not persuasive in this case.

Read More

New Hampshire v. Perez

Docket: 2018-0647

Opinion Date: May 15, 2020

Judge: Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Miguel Perez was convicted by jury on two counts of possessing a controlled drug with the intent to distribute, subsequent offense. On appeal, he argued the Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search of his rental car following a motor vehicle stop. Prior to the stop at issue, officers observed defendant driving a rented car with Colorado license plates, tailgating a tractor trailer. Defendant twice failed to properly signal as he changed lanes to pass the truck. The officer observed multiple cell phones in the passenger seat, and smelled the odor of fresh or burnt marijuana emanate from the passenger compartment. After checking defendant's ID, the officer learned defendant was on parole for murder and there were no active warrants for his arrest. Defendant consented to a search of his vehicle; the officer noted defendant was being "overly cooperative." From this search, the officer discovered two small plastic bags containing drugs. Defendant argued in his motion to suppress evidence that the officer did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the scope of the initial stop, his questioning impermissibly prolonged the detention and changed its fundamental nature., and the subsequent consent to search the vehicle was “tainted” by this unconstitutional detention. After review of the trial court record, the New Hampshire Supreme Court disagreed with defendant's contentions and affirmed conviction.