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

• An undercover detective, posing as a drug buyer, entered an apartment to conduct a drug transaction. The Defendant, among others, was present in the apartment. After the transaction, the detective signaled for a police team, who detained the occupants and conducted a warrantless search, leading to the discovery of buy-money hidden in a closet. The Defendant was charged with trafficking by distribution (cocaine), conspiracy to commit trafficking, and tampering with evidence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the evidence obtained from the closet was the result of a warrantless and therefore unlawful search, violating the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
• State: Claimed that the Defendant did not have standing to object to the search, the evidence was in plain view, exigent circumstances justified the search, the search was a lawful protective sweep, and the Defendant abandoned the evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment and the items seized.
• Whether the warrantless search of the apartment and subsequent seizure of evidence were justified under any exception to the warrant requirement.

Disposition

• The court agreed with the Defendant that the search was unlawful and reversed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  Expectation of Privacy: The court found that the Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment based on his testimony of residing there, paying rent, and keeping personal items in the apartment (paras 9-17).
  Abandonment: The court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant abandoned any expectation of privacy in the buy-money by hiding it in the closet, noting the lack of evidence showing a clear intent to abandon (paras 26-28).
  Plain View: The court determined that the buy-money was not in plain view at the time of the search, as the only officer aware of the hiding did not actually see what was being hidden (para 29).
  Exigency and Protective Sweep: The court found no evidence of exigent circumstances or a need for a protective sweep that would justify the warrantless search, noting that all occupants were already detained outside and the premises were under control (paras 30-33).
  Conclusion: The court concluded that the State failed to justify the warrantless search and seizure of the buy-money under any exception to the warrant requirement, leading to the reversal of the motion to suppress's denial and remanding the matter to the district court (paras 34-35).