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 convicted of possession of a controlled substance (crack cocaine) following a search of his residence. The search was conducted based on a warrant supported by information from a confidential informant (CI) and observations of controlled drug purchases at the Defendant's residence. The Defendant challenged the validity of the search warrant, arguing that the affidavit supporting it contained stale information, lacked specificity, and failed to establish the CI's credibility and veracity.
Procedural History
- District Court, Socorro County: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and motion to compel disclosure of the CI's identity were denied. The Defendant entered a conditional no-contest plea, reserving the right to appeal these rulings.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search warrant was invalid due to a defective affidavit, which failed to specify the residence to be searched, relied on stale information, and did not establish the CI's credibility or veracity. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the district court erred in denying the motion to disclose the CI's identity, as the CI's testimony was necessary to challenge the affidavit's sufficiency.
- State-Appellee: Maintained that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant, as it described the residence in detail, included evidence of ongoing drug activity, and established the CI's reliability through corroboration and historical accuracy. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the CI's identity was relevant or helpful to the defense.
Legal Issues
- Was the affidavit supporting the search warrant legally sufficient to establish probable cause?
- Was the information in the affidavit stale, thereby invalidating the search warrant?
- Did the district court err in denying the Defendant's motion to disclose the CI's identity?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction and upheld the denial of the motions to suppress and to disclose the CI's identity.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of the Affidavit: The Court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. It described the residence in detail and included evidence of ongoing drug activity, such as two controlled purchases conducted within six weeks of the warrant's issuance. The magistrate could reasonably infer that evidence of drug activity would be found at the Defendant's residence.
Staleness of Information: The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the information in the affidavit was stale. It emphasized that the controlled purchases demonstrated ongoing criminal activity, and the residence's non-transitory nature increased the likelihood that evidence would still be present. The Court also dismissed concerns about typographical errors in the affidavit, finding them immaterial to the probable cause determination.
CI's Credibility and Veracity: The Court found that the CI's reliability was established through historical accuracy and corroboration by law enforcement. The controlled purchases, during which the CI was searched before and after the transactions, further supported the CI's credibility.
Disclosure of CI's Identity: The Court upheld the denial of the motion to disclose the CI's identity, concluding that the Defendant failed to show that the CI's testimony would be relevant or helpful to the defense. The affidavit itself sufficiently established the CI's credibility and basis of knowledge, rendering disclosure unnecessary.