AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A police officer, while investigating an alleged battery, visited the Defendant's residence twice and claimed to smell burning marijuana on both occasions. Based on this, the officer prepared an affidavit for a search warrant, which led to the discovery of drugs and drug paraphernalia at the Defendant's home. The Defendant was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, May 21, 1998: The court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding that the officer's affidavit contained misleading statements about his training and experience in detecting marijuana (paras 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in suppressing the evidence and that the officer's affidavit was facially sufficient. The State also contended that its appeal was timely filed under the applicable rules for computing time (paras 7, 19-20).
• Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the officer's affidavit was misleading due to omissions and misstatements about his training and experience, which invalidated the search warrant. The Defendant also argued that the State's appeal was untimely (paras 6-7, 21-22).

Legal Issues

• Was the State's appeal of the suppression order timely filed?
• Did the district court apply the correct legal standard in evaluating the officer's affidavit for the search warrant?
• Should the evidence obtained from the search be suppressed due to alleged misstatements and omissions in the affidavit?

Disposition

• The State's appeal was found to be timely.
• The district court's suppression order was reversed.
• The case was remanded for a new suppression hearing under the correct legal standard (paras 8, 36-37).

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Pickard CJ. and Alarid J. concurring):

• Timeliness of Appeal: The court held that the State's appeal was timely under Rule 12-308 NMRA, which excludes intermediate weekends and holidays when computing time for appeals of less than eleven days. The State filed its notice of appeal within the permissible period (paras 9-18).

• Legal Standard for Affidavit Misstatements: The district court applied the outdated standard from State v. Gutierrez, which allowed suppression based on intentional misrepresentations alone. However, the correct standard, as established in Franks v. Delaware and adopted in State v. Cervantes, requires a showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, and that such misstatements or omissions must be material to the magistrate's finding of probable cause (paras 19-35).

• Remand for Rehearing: The court determined that the district court's reliance on the overruled Gutierrez standard necessitated a new suppression hearing. The proper standard requires evaluating whether the officer's affidavit contained deliberate or reckless misstatements or omissions that were material to the issuance of the search warrant (paras 35-36).