Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6

This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 8 9 v. 10 SHARON EARNEST, 11 Defendant-Appellee. Plaintiff-Appellant, NO. 30,478

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 13 Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge 14 15 16 17 Gary K. King, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM

18 for Appellant 19 Trace L. Rabern 20 Santa Fe, NM 21 for Appellee

22

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 2 The State appeals the district court's order granting Defendant Sharon Earnest's

3 motion to suppress evidence. On March 18, 2011, this Court filed a third calendar 4 notice proposing reversal on the summary calendar. On June 24, 2011, Defendant 5 filed a memorandum in opposition that we have given due consideration. For the 6 reasons set forth below and in our calendar notices, we reverse the district court. 7 INTRODUCTION 8 In the district court, Defendant moved to suppress evidence of possession of

9 drugs and drug paraphernalia, alleging that the evidence was the fruit of an earlier 10 search warrant that she asserts was invalid. [RP 79-81] Defendant's arguments fall 11 into two categories: those related to the veracity of the informants relied on in the 12 affidavit for the search warrant and those related to procedural or technical defects in 13 the warrant. In the present circumstances, as background for our analysis of both 14 issues, 15 16 17 18 19 [w]e are mindful of the admonitions that a reviewing court should not impose technical requirements on an affidavit nor insist on elaborate specificity, but instead we should apply a common-sense reading of the affidavit, while bearing in mind that such affidavits are generally prepared by police officers who are not lawyers.

20 In re Shon Daniel K., 1998-NMCA-069,

Download CA30478.pdf

New Mexico Law