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 Defendant, Kevin Lowe, entered a guilty plea to trafficking a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appeal centers on the contention that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause, specifically failing to meet the veracity and basis of knowledge requirements for the confidential informant's information.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County, Gary L. Clingman, District Judge: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence because the affidavit for the search warrant did not establish probable cause, failing to meet the requirements for demonstrating the confidential informant's veracity and basis of knowledge.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant established probable cause by satisfying the requirements for demonstrating the confidential informant's veracity and basis of knowledge.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Linda M. Vanzi and M. Monica Zamora, the Court of Appeals found the affidavit for the search warrant sufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit stated that the confidential informant had provided true and accurate information on at least three occasions regarding drug sales, which the Court deemed sufficient to establish the informant's credibility. The Court distinguished this case from others cited by the Defendant, finding that the affidavit met the established legal standards for demonstrating both the basis of the informant's knowledge and their veracity. The Defendant's response to the Court's notice of proposed summary disposition did not present new factual or legal arguments sufficient to alter the Court's analysis. Therefore, the Court held that probable cause supported the issuance of the search warrant, and the district court's denial of the motion to suppress was proper (paras 1-5).