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 Defendant, Juan Mota, who was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute (marijuana) and possession of drug paraphernalia following a search of his residence. The search was conducted based on a warrant issued after a confidential informant (CI) informed Detective S. Covington of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office about purchasing marijuana from the Defendant and observing additional quantities of marijuana and money at the Defendant's residence. The CI also mentioned that the Defendant used his mother's residence for drug transactions to avoid law enforcement detection of his own residence (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, claiming the affidavit for the search warrant did not provide a substantial basis for probable cause (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress should be reversed on the grounds that the information in the affidavit was stale, particularly regarding the probability of finding evidence of drug trafficking at the Defendant's residence (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant due to the affidavit not providing a substantial basis for probable cause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress (para 11).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring): The court found that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to provide a substantial basis for the issuing judge to believe the informant had a factual basis for the information provided and was credible. Despite the CI's claims of purchasing marijuana from the Defendant and observing additional quantities of marijuana and money at the Defendant's residence, the affidavit lacked details on the CI's last visit to the Defendant's residence, when or if the CI saw money and marijuana there, or how the CI had first-hand knowledge of these facts. The court agreed with the State's concession that the information was stale, particularly because the recent drug transaction mentioned occurred at the Defendant's mother's residence, not his own, and there was insufficient information of ongoing criminal activity at the Defendant's residence to justify the search warrant (paras 5-10).