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 Defendant was observed by a confidential informant selling marijuana in a motel room within 48 hours prior to the issuance of a search warrant. The informant, who had a history of providing reliable information, also reported that the Defendant possessed a loaded firearm and was upset over the loss of his vehicle. The search warrant was issued based on this information, leading to the seizure of evidence and subsequent charges against the Defendant for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (paras 2, 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through the search warrant.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause because the information provided by the informant was stale and did not establish ongoing criminal activity (paras 1, 5).
- Appellee (State): Contended that the affidavit met the requirements for probable cause, asserting that the information implied ongoing drug activity and that evidence of the crime would still be present in the motel room (paras 6-8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant provided sufficient probable cause to justify its issuance.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motion (para 11).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Pickard CJ and Sutin J. concurring):
The Court found that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause because the information provided by the informant was stale and did not demonstrate ongoing criminal activity. The affidavit only described a single marijuana sale observed within 48 hours prior to the warrant's issuance, without any indication of additional transactions, drug paraphernalia, or quantities of drugs that would suggest continued activity (paras 3, 6-7).
The Court emphasized that probable cause requires substantial evidence showing that the items sought are evidence of a crime and are likely to be found at the location to be searched. The transient nature of a motel room and the consumable nature of marijuana further diminished the likelihood that evidence would still be present (paras 5, 9).
The Court rejected the State's argument that the affidavit implied ongoing activity, noting that the language used ("in the past 48 hours") was insufficient to establish a pattern of continued criminal conduct. The Court also highlighted the absence of corroborating details, such as the quantity of drugs or the presence of drug paraphernalia, which would have supported an inference of ongoing activity (paras 6-8).
As a result, the Court concluded that the issuing judge lacked a sufficient basis to determine probable cause, rendering the search warrant invalid (paras 10-11).