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 Child-Appellant was charged with residential burglary following his conditional plea. At the time of his arrest, he was carrying three purses, and the police sought his permission to search these without advising him of his right to remain silent. The Child-Appellant later contested the admissibility of evidence obtained from the search of the purses.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the failure to advise the Child-Appellant of his right to remain silent before seeking permission to search the purses did not render the evidence obtained inadmissible. This argument is based on precedents that do not grant children greater rights under the Fourth Amendment than adults.
• Appellant (Child-Appellant): Contended that the district court should have suppressed the evidence resulting from the search of the purses. Additionally, for the first time on appeal, the Child-Appellant suggested that an incriminating statement made prior to the search—that the purses belonged to him—should have been suppressed.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not suppressing evidence obtained from the search of the purses carried by the Child-Appellant at the time of his arrest.
• Whether the Child-Appellant's incriminating statement made prior to the search should be suppressed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the motion to amend the docketing statement to raise the new argument regarding the suppression of the Child-Appellant's statement and affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that the Child-Appellant's argument regarding the suppression of evidence obtained from the search of the purses did not provide a basis for distinguishing this case from precedent cases where similar consent was given without first being advised of the right to remain silent (para 2). The Court also noted that Section 32A-2-14 does not afford children greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than adults under the Fourth Amendment and the New Mexico Constitution (para 2).
  Regarding the Child-Appellant's new argument about suppressing his incriminating statement made prior to the search, the Court determined that this issue was not preserved for review because it was not raised before the district court and did not meet the criteria for amending the docketing statement on appeal (paras 3-6). The Court emphasized that the motion before the district court did not seek to suppress any statements made prior to the consent to search the purses but focused on the physical evidence obtained from the search and subsequent statements as being "fruit of the poisonous tree" (para 5). Consequently, the Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the district court's judgment based on the reasons stated in the Court's notice of proposed disposition (para 6).