This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose from a commercial burglary at a Volkswagen repair business in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The burglar entered two separate buildings on the premises, stealing auto mechanic tools valued at approximately $4,000. Witnesses reported seeing a car matching the description of one used by the Defendant and his girlfriend near the scene. A search of the car, conducted with the girlfriend's consent, revealed items believed to be stolen from the business (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Eddy County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that he lacked standing to challenge the search of the car. Denied the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on one of the burglary counts (headnotes, paras 5, 11).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence obtained from the car search should be suppressed because the second search was conducted without consent. Also contended that the two burglary charges should be merged into one, as only one burglary occurred (paras 1, 5, 11).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search because he did not own the car and was not present during the search. Further argued that the two burglary charges were proper because the burglaries involved two separate buildings and victims (paras 1, 8, 14).
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant have standing to challenge the search of the car?
- Was the evidence obtained from the car search admissible?
- Should the two burglary charges have been merged into one?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling that the Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and remanded the case for a rehearing on the motion to suppress (para 18).
- The Court affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the burglary charges (para 19).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Bustamante and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Standing to Challenge the Search: The Court found that the Defendant, as a regular, permissive user of the car shared with his girlfriend, had a subjective expectation of privacy in the car. This expectation was deemed reasonable under societal standards, granting him standing to challenge the search. The district court's finding that the Defendant was not a permissive user was unsupported by substantial evidence (paras 8-9).
Admissibility of Evidence: The Court noted conflicting evidence regarding whether a second, non-consensual search occurred. Since the district court did not evaluate this evidence in the context of the suppression motion, the case was remanded for reconsideration of the motion to suppress (para 10).
Multiple Burglary Charges: The Court held that the two burglary charges were proper because the burglaries involved two separate buildings and affected the security interests of two victims. The Court distinguished burglary from larceny, noting that burglary statutes protect the security of structures, and multiple charges are appropriate when multiple structures or victims are involved (paras 13-17).