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 and a cohabitant lived together in an apartment for approximately six years, with the cohabitant having access to all areas of the apartment. Following an alleged incident of domestic violence, the cohabitant fled the apartment and later consented to a police search of the premises. The search uncovered evidence related to allegations of kidnapping, sexual assault, and battery. The Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the cohabitant lacked authority to consent to the search (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search, finding that the cohabitant lacked authority to consent to the search (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the cohabitant had common authority over the apartment and validly consented to the search, as she had lived there for an extended period, had access to all areas, and retained a sufficient relationship to the property despite fleeing due to the Defendant's alleged misconduct (paras 8-14).
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the cohabitant lacked authority to consent because she was not a co-lessee, did not contribute financially to the rent, and had abandoned the apartment with no intention of returning, thereby relinquishing any common authority (paras 6, 9-10).
Legal Issues
- Did the cohabitant have the authority to consent to the search of the apartment after fleeing due to the Defendant's alleged misconduct?
- Was the evidence obtained during the search admissible?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order suppressing the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 15).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Pickard and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the cohabitant retained sufficient authority to consent to the search despite fleeing the apartment. The reasoning focused on the cohabitant's relationship to the property, not her relationship with the Defendant. The cohabitant had lived in the apartment for over a year, had access to all areas, and retained personal belongings there. Her authority to consent was not extinguished by her departure, especially as it was prompted by the Defendant's alleged violent misconduct. The Court emphasized that the Defendant could not reasonably expect the cohabitant to refrain from seeking police assistance or returning to retrieve her belongings. The search was therefore valid, and the evidence obtained was admissible (paras 9-14).