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 case involves the State's appeal from a district court order that partially granted Daniel R. (Child) a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless entry into Child's home. The district court found no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry, thus ruling it violated Child's rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge: The district court granted, in part, Child's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless entry into his home.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued in favor of the appeal but did not oppose the summary disposition proposed by the Court of Appeals.
• Child-Appellee (Daniel R.): Successfully moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry into his home, arguing it violated his rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting, in part, Child's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless entry into his home.
• Whether there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry into Child's home.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting, in part, Child's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless entry into his home.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Roderick T. Kennedy, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's ruling based on the absence of exigent circumstances that would justify a warrantless entry into Child's home. The State's response to the Court's proposed disposition, stating it did not oppose the summary disposition, further supported the Court's decision to affirm the district court's order (para 1).