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 of a district court order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant. The affidavit for the search warrant was based on information from a confidential informant (CI) who claimed to have seen a large quantity of cocaine at the Defendant's residence at an unspecified time in the past. Additionally, the CI observed the Defendant's spouse, Diego Garcia, with narcotics at another location within the past thirty days and in possession of trafficking amounts of cocaine on more than one occasion within the past sixty days, but at unspecified locations.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search warrant.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the affidavit provided sufficient information to establish probable cause for the search warrant, emphasizing ongoing criminal activity by Diego Garcia and attempting to negate any staleness of the CI's information.
• Defendant-Appellee: Successfully moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant, arguing the affidavit did not establish probable cause, particularly due to the lack of specificity and corroboration of the CI's information.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search warrant due to a lack of probable cause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found the State's arguments unconvincing and upheld the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress. The court highlighted that the affidavit for the search warrant lacked specific information regarding when the CI observed narcotics at the Defendant's residence and failed to establish a substantial basis for determining that there was probable cause to believe a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. The court noted the affidavit's reliance on a single, unspecified observation by the CI and the absence of timely corroboration or specific evidence of ongoing criminal activity at the Defendant's residence. The court also found the information provided by a concerned citizen informant (CCI) and the officers' observations insufficient to establish probable cause or refresh any possible staleness in the CI's information. The court concluded that the affidavit failed to support a conclusion that narcotics would be found at the Defendant's residence at the time the warrant was issued and executed.