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

• Detective Martinez of the Albuquerque Police Department Central Narcotics Unit received information from a paid informant that Heather Lucero and her partner, known as "Lobo" and allegedly a member of the TCK gang, were dealing drugs from their residence. The informant suggested Lobo was "possibly" armed. Based on this, Martinez obtained a search warrant but omitted any mention of Lobo due to lack of identifying information. Upon executing the warrant, officers did not knock or announce their presence before entering, leading to the discovery of narcotics and charges against Lucero and her partner, Luis Coronado (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that exigent circumstances justified the officers' decision to enter without knocking and announcing, based on the informant's report of an armed gang member possibly being inside the residence (para 6).
• Defendants-Appellees (Lucero and Coronado): Argued that the officers' failure to knock and announce their presence violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the officers' failure to knock and announce their presence before executing a search warrant was justified by exigent circumstances.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to grant Defendants' motions to suppress evidence was affirmed (para 16).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with concurrence from MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, held that the district court correctly concluded that the informant's vague and unverified information did not create an exigency justifying the officers' failure to announce their presence before entering the residence. The court emphasized the importance of the knock-and-announce rule in protecting privacy, dignity, and safety, and found that the State's arguments did not sufficiently challenge the district court's findings on the reliability of the informant or the specificity of the threat posed by "Lobo." The court also noted that the State waived any challenge to these findings by not addressing them on appeal (paras 9-15).