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, a probationer, was visited at her residence by probation officers and police officers as part of a police investigation into a fugitive, Rebecca Valdez, who had been seen with the Defendant. During the visit, the Defendant admitted to drug use, tested positive for drugs, and contraband was found in her home. The police obtained a warrant for a second search, which revealed additional contraband. The Defendant was subsequently charged with probation violations and drug trafficking offenses (paras 4-5, 7-9).
Procedural History
- District Court, October 23, 2007: The court granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after the initial questioning, finding that the police improperly used probation officers to conduct a search for a fugitive, which was outside the scope of their probationary duties (paras 10-11).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the probation officers’ visit was not a subterfuge for a police investigation, that the probation officers had reasonable cause to search the Defendant’s home based on her admission of drug use, and that the search was justified as incident to a lawful arrest for a probation violation (para 11).
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the evidence was obtained unlawfully because the probation officers were acting as agents of the police, and the search was conducted for a police purpose rather than a probationary purpose (paras 10, 16).
Legal Issues
- Was the search of the Defendant’s residence conducted for a probationary purpose or as a subterfuge for a police investigation?
- Did the probation officers have reasonable cause to search the Defendant’s home independently of police involvement?
- Was the evidence obtained during the search admissible under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to suppress the evidence (para 21).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Castillo and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that the probation officers were improperly enlisted by the police to assist in a criminal investigation, which rendered the search unconstitutional. The probation officers’ actions were not motivated by a probationary purpose but were subordinate to the police’s goal of locating a fugitive. The Court emphasized that probation officers’ authority to conduct warrantless searches must be exercised independently and not as a proxy for police investigations. The evidence obtained after the initial questioning was therefore inadmissible (paras 13-20).