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

• Officers were dispatched to a motel based on information that a couple was using drugs in a room. Upon arrival, motel staff informed the officers that a male and female were screaming at one another. Officers went to the room, where a male answered the door and falsely stated that his dad was the only other person in the room. The officers then entered the room without consent, leading to the defendant's challenge of the warrantless entry (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry into the motel room (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Opposed the appeal, arguing that the district court's ruling was supported by precedent and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry into the motel room.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge James J. Wechsler authoring the opinion, and Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judge Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, found that the warrantless entry into the motel room was not justified by exigent circumstances. The court distinguished the present case from State v. Aragon, noting the lack of information indicating physical abuse or threats of abuse and the absence of screaming upon the officers' arrival at the room. The court concluded that the officers' warrantless entry was not supported by exigent circumstances, leading to the reversal of the district court's decision (paras 4-6).