AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 New Mexico State Police and the New Mexico National Guard conducted "Operation Yerba Buena" to locate marijuana plantations in Taos County, New Mexico. During the operation, a helicopter spotted a greenhouse and vegetation in the Defendant's backyard, leading to a ground team's investigation. The Defendant was approached by an officer who, after identifying himself, requested permission to search the Defendant's property for marijuana plants, which the Defendant voluntarily consented to. The search resulted in the discovery of marijuana and drug paraphernalia (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Davis (Davis II), 2013-NMSC-028: The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s determination that the Defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his property.
• State v. Davis (Davis I), 2011-NMCA-102: This Court reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion on the basis that the Defendant’s consent was the result of duress, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his property and that the aerial surveillance did not violate the Defendant's constitutional rights (N/A).
• Defendant-Appellant (Norman Davis): Contended that the helicopter surveillance of his property violated both the federal and state constitutions and that his consent to the search was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal search to be purged of the taint (paras 3, 27-28).

Legal Issues

• Whether the aerial surveillance of the Defendant’s property prior to the consensual physical search violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
• Whether the Defendant’s consent to the search of his property was purged of the taint of the alleged constitutional violation arising from the aerial surveillance (para 4).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana and other evidence seized during the search (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, with opinions by Judges Cynthia A. Fry, Roderick T. Kennedy, and Jonathan B. Sutin (specially concurring), concluded that Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment regarding aerial surveillance of a person’s home. It was determined that the aerial surveillance constituted a search requiring a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement. The Court found insufficient attenuation between the warrantless aerial search and the Defendant’s consent, leading to the reversal of the district court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of privacy and the sanctity of the home, diverging from federal precedent due to distinctive state characteristics and a flawed federal analysis in terms of privacy expectations from aerial surveillance (paras 5-32).