This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A probation officer, accompanied by police officers, entered a residence to locate a probationer suspected of violating probation conditions. During the search, the Defendant, who was present at the residence, attempted to hide and destroy evidence, including methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine and tampering with evidence.
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County, presided by Judge Thomas J. Hynes: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search violated her constitutional rights, asserting that the probation officer acted as a police agent without proper authority, there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances, and the officers failed to comply with the knock-and-announce rule. She also contended that the probation officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the search and that the entry was a ruse to circumvent constitutional protections.
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Maintained that the probation officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search based on the probationer's violations, including failure to report his residence and prior positive drug tests. The State argued that the probation officer acted within her authority and not as a police agent, and the search was lawful under the probation agreement.
Legal Issues
- Did the probation officer have reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search of the residence under the probation agreement?
- Was the probation officer acting in her role as a probation officer or as a police agent?
- Did the search violate the Defendant's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and the New Mexico Constitution?
- Were the Defendant's arguments regarding the knock-and-announce rule and other procedural issues properly preserved for appeal?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Kennedy and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the probation officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search based on the probationer's failure to report his residence, prior positive drug tests, and additional information from a police officer about potential drug activity. The probation officer acted within her role and authority, and her actions were not a ruse to enable police investigation. The probation agreement allowed warrantless searches with reasonable suspicion, and the officer's actions complied with this standard.
The Court also held that the Defendant's arguments regarding the knock-and-announce rule, state constitutional protections, and the requirement for the probationer's permission to search were not properly preserved for appeal. These issues were either not raised or insufficiently argued in the district court, preventing the appellate court from addressing them.
The Court concluded that the search was lawful, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was upheld.