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 case arose from a search warrant issued telephonically by a magistrate judge, which was executed on properties associated with the Defendants. The investigator seeking the warrant reportedly read the affidavit and statement of facts supporting the warrant to the magistrate judge during a three- to seven-minute phone call. The district court found this process insufficient for the magistrate judge to properly assess probable cause or act as a neutral and detached authority.
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The district court granted the Defendants' motion to suppress evidence, finding that the telephonic approval of the search warrant was invalid due to insufficient time for the magistrate judge to properly review the affidavit and statement of facts.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): The State argued that the search warrant was valid because it was prepared in writing, read to the magistrate judge, and copies were provided to the occupants of the searched properties. Additionally, the warrant was filed with the magistrate judge two days after its execution.
- Appellees (Defendants): The Defendants contended that the telephonic approval of the search warrant was invalid because the magistrate judge could not have properly reviewed the affidavit and statement of facts in the limited time available, thereby failing to act as a neutral and detached authority.
Legal Issues
- Was the telephonic approval of the search warrant valid under New Mexico law?
- Did the magistrate judge have sufficient time to properly review the affidavit and statement of facts to determine probable cause?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Kennedy and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the telephonic approval of the search warrant was invalid under New Mexico law. The New Mexico Constitution requires a written showing of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and the magistrate judge must make an informed and deliberate determination of probable cause. The district court found that the three- to seven-minute phone call was insufficient for the magistrate judge to properly review the affidavit and statement of facts or to act as a neutral and detached authority. The Court of Appeals agreed, emphasizing that New Mexico rules do not provide for telephonic approval of search warrants. Arguments regarding the provision of copies of the warrant and its later filing with the magistrate judge were deemed irrelevant to the validity of the warrant at the time of its issuance.