This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a residence based on information from informants that the Defendant was supplying heroin to another individual at the location. Upon arrival, children in the yard alerted the occupants to the police presence, prompting an officer to enter the house without knocking or announcing. Inside, the officer observed the Defendant dropping a bag of marijuana and attempting to flee. Heroin was later recovered near where the Defendant had been sitting.
Procedural History
- District Court: The Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The court denied a motion to suppress evidence, finding exigent circumstances justified the unannounced entry.
- State v. Ortega, 114 N.M. 193, 836 P.2d 639 (Ct. App. 1992): The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding the search warrant was overbroad but agreed that exigent circumstances justified the unannounced entry.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the unannounced entry violated constitutional rights and that the evidence obtained should be suppressed.
- Plaintiff-Respondent: Contended that exigent circumstances justified the unannounced entry to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Legal Issues
- Was the unannounced entry into the Defendant's residence justified by exigent circumstances under the New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that exigent circumstances justified the unannounced entry and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Reasons
Per Ransom CJ. (Montgomery and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The Court held that exigent circumstances justified the unannounced entry. The officer had a reasonable belief, based on information from multiple informants, that evidence would be destroyed if the occupants were alerted to the police presence. The children’s warnings to the occupants further heightened the risk of evidence destruction. The Court emphasized that the knock-and-announce rule is of constitutional importance but may be overridden when law enforcement interests, such as preserving evidence, outweigh privacy concerns. The officer’s actions were deemed objectively reasonable under the circumstances.