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

• On August 21, 2008, an investigator responded to a complaint about a dead horse smell at the defendants' residence. Upon observing evidence of numerous problems, the investigator decided to obtain a search warrant. With the courts closed and unable to find a judge in person, the investigator obtained verbal approval for the warrant via telephone from an on-call judge. The warrant was executed immediately after its telephonic approval (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that telephonic warrants are not valid in New Mexico due to inconsistency with state rules and the requirement that warrants may only be authorized by statute (para 4).
• State: Contended that the warrant was not telephonic but a standard written warrant that received telephonic approval. The State also addressed other issues regarding the validity of the search warrant, which were not examined due to the court's conclusion on telephonic warrants (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether telephonic warrants are recognized under the New Mexico Constitution (para 1).
• Whether the procedure followed for obtaining the telephonic warrant satisfies the constitutional requirement for a written showing of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation (paras 8-10).

Disposition

• The court reversed the order denying Defendants’ motion to suppress evidence obtained through the telephonic warrant and remanded for further proceedings (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with an opinion authored by Judge Michael D. Bustamante and concurrence from Judges James J. Wechsler and Cynthia A. Fry, held that telephonic warrants are not recognized under the New Mexico Constitution. The court reasoned that the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 6-208(A)(4) NMRA clearly require a written statement showing probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, for issuing a warrant. The court distinguished between the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, noting that the latter provides greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court assumed, without deciding, that the affidavit and statement of facts were supported by oath or affirmation but found that the procedure did not satisfy the constitutional requirement that the judge must see the writing before issuing a warrant. The court highlighted the potential for error or abuse in the procedure followed and stated that if telephonic warrants were to be adopted in New Mexico, it would be up to the Supreme Court to formulate rules to render them valid (paras 5-18).