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 case involves the State's appeal against the suppression of evidence obtained from the Defendant's camera and computer. The Defendant's former wife discovered a GoPro camera in the bathroom, which led to her confronting the Defendant. She later handed the camera and a personal computer to the police. The police delayed obtaining a search warrant for these items for thirty-five months, raising questions about the reasonableness of this delay under the Fourth Amendment (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court,: The district court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the camera and computer due to the unreasonable delay in obtaining a search warrant (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The State argued that the district court erred in concluding that the length of the delay alone rendered the seizure of the items unreasonable (para 8).
- Appellee: The Defendant argued that the thirty-five-month delay in obtaining a search warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights (para 5).
Legal Issues
- Was the State's thirty-five-month delay in obtaining a search warrant for the Defendant's camera and computer unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence due to the unreasonable delay in obtaining a search warrant (para 14).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Attrep and Baca JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the delay in obtaining a search warrant was constitutionally unreasonable. The Defendant had a diminished possessory interest in the items, but the State failed to provide a valid reason for the delay. The Court emphasized the need for law enforcement to diligently pursue investigations and found no evidence of such diligence in this case. The State's interests, particularly regarding the camera, were acknowledged, but the lack of action over the thirty-five-month period contrasted sharply with the diligence required by precedent (paras 6-14).