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

• Police obtained a search warrant for the Defendant's residence after controlled purchases of methamphetamine were made there. The warrant included a "no-knock" entry authorization due to concerns that the occupants were armed and dangerous, based on a confidential informant's observations and a state police officer's advice. During the execution of the warrant, no firearms were found, although items consistent with drug trafficking were seized. The Defendant moved to suppress the items recovered, arguing the "no-knock" entry was unjustified (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY, Albert J. Mitchell, District Judge: The district court agreed with the Defendant that the officers' failure to knock and announce prior to entry was unjustified, leading to the suppression of all items recovered during the search (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the "no-knock" entry was justified due to the presence of exigent circumstances, suggesting that the officers had a reasonable belief that knocking and announcing their presence would increase the danger to themselves (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the officers' failure to knock and announce was unjustified, leading to the motion to suppress the items recovered during the search (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the "no-knock" entry executed by the police officers was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the knock-and-announce rule required by Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution (paras 4-5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's order of suppression, agreeing that the "no-knock" entry was unjustified (para 11).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge concurring): The court found that the specific, articulable facts and the totality of the circumstances at the time of entry did not justify dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement. The court emphasized the need for a particularized showing of danger to establish exigent circumstances for a no-knock entry. In this case, the only indications of dangerousness were the Defendant's drug trafficking activities and the observation of a firearm nine days prior to the search, which the court found insufficient to demonstrate a propensity for violence or a specific, immediate threat to officer safety. The court also rejected the State's argument that the delay in executing the warrant was of special significance, maintaining that the fundamental question was whether the circumstances at the time of entry justified the no-knock entry, which they concluded did not (paras 4-10).