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

• Police executed a search warrant at Defendant Pebbles Jean-Paul’s home for controlled substances. Upon approach, officers observed a man near a window who moved away as they reached the door. After announcing their presence and waiting approximately one second, officers forcibly entered the home with a battering ram, finding drugs and drug paraphernalia inside.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY, Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge: The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officers did not comply with the constitutional requirement to knock and announce their presence and authority and then wait a reasonable time for an answer prior to forcibly entering the premises, and that no exceptions existed that would have permitted the police to dispense with this requirement.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the one-second wait after knocking and announcing was justified due to the presence of a man near the window, suggesting that the occupants were aware of the police presence, which could have led to the destruction of evidence or preparation of weapons.

Legal Issues

• Whether the police's one-second wait after knocking and announcing their presence before forcibly entering Defendant's home was justified under the exigent circumstances or futility exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirement.
• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that the one-second wait after knocking and announcing was not justified by either the exigent circumstances exception or the futility exception to the knock-and-announce requirement. The Court concluded that such a brief wait did not allow the occupants reasonable time to voluntarily open the door or to infer that they had refused to voluntarily admit the police. The Court also noted that the mere possibility that an occupant might destroy evidence does not give rise to an exigency under New Mexico law, and that the specific circumstances of this case did not justify a departure from the requirement to wait a reasonable time after announcing presence and authority before forcibly entering (paras 1, 9-33).