This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the Defendant’s residence, located at 8700 Highway 478, Vado, New Mexico. The warrant, however, incorrectly listed the address as 8628-B Highway 478, which is the Defendant’s mother’s residence. The warrant described the property as a tan and brown single-family dwelling with specific features. The search followed surveillance and drug purchases by confidential informants. Evidence obtained during the search led to charges of drug trafficking, possession of controlled substances, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia (paras 1, 3, 5, 7).
Procedural History
- District Court, December 1, 2006: The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the search, finding that the warrant did not sufficiently identify the premises to be searched and that there were similar residences in the vicinity (paras 4, 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the incorrect address on the warrant was a technical error and that the warrant’s description, combined with the executing officer’s personal knowledge, sufficiently identified the premises. The State also contended that the district court’s finding of similar residences in the area was unsupported by evidence (paras 2, 6, 9).
- Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the incorrect address rendered the search warrant invalid, effectively making the search warrantless. The Defendant argued that the description and the officer’s personal knowledge were insufficient to cure the error, as there were similar residences in the area, and house numbers were posted on the Defendant’s home (paras 6, 7).
Legal Issues
- Was the district court’s finding of similar residences in the vicinity supported by substantial evidence?
- Did the warrant sufficiently identify the premises to be searched to leave the executing officers no doubt or discretion regarding the location?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order suppressing the evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 1).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Sutin and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Finding of Similar Residences: The district court’s finding that there were similar residences in the vicinity was not supported by substantial evidence. The only evidence presented, an aerial photograph, showed rooftops and surrounding terrain but did not establish similarity in appearance or features. No other evidence supported this finding (paras 10-12).
Sufficiency of the Warrant: The Court applied the standard from State v. Stanley and State v. Sero, which requires that a warrant description, combined with reasonable effort and the executing officer’s knowledge, must leave no doubt or discretion regarding the premises to be searched. The warrant’s physical description of the Defendant’s residence, along with the executing officer’s personal knowledge from prior surveillance and drug purchases, met this standard. The incorrect address was deemed a technical error that did not invalidate the warrant (paras 13-18).
Distinguishing Out-of-State Cases: The Court rejected the Defendant’s reliance on cases from other jurisdictions, noting that New Mexico law focuses on whether the premises can be identified with reasonable effort, rather than rigidly invalidating warrants for technical errors (paras 19-21).
The Court concluded that the search was reasonable and the warrant was sufficient under New Mexico law, reversing the suppression order (paras 22-23).