State v. Belknap
35,195
| N.M. Ct. App. | Mar 6, 2017Background
- Police executed a search warrant of David Belknap’s home after an affidavit from Agent Rodney Scharmack relying solely on an unnamed confidential informant (CI) reported recent observation of marijuana and alleged distribution at the residence.
- The CI was described as a self-admitted drug user, familiar with narcotics’ appearance, packaging, pricing, quantities, ingestion and distribution methods, and had provided reliable information in the past.
- The affidavit stated the CI observed a quantity of marijuana "consistent with trafficking or distribution" within the prior 72 hours and asserted distribution was conducted from the residence "on a regular basis," but offered no specifics about quantities, packaging, transactions, timing, or how the CI acquired the information.
- Agent Scharmack knew Belknap held a valid New Mexico medical marijuana registration (Compassionate Use Act) permitting limited possession/growth but did not disclose that fact to the magistrate issuing the warrant.
- The district court denied Belknap’s motion to suppress; Belknap entered a conditional plea reserving appeal of the suppression ruling. The Court of Appeals reversed the denial, holding the affidavit failed to establish probable cause and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the home based on CI hearsay | The affidavit, showing CI reliability and recent observations, supplied probable cause to issue the warrant | The affidavit lacked factual detail about the CI’s basis of knowledge (no quantities, packaging, transactions, timeframe), so it did not establish probable cause | Affidavit insufficient: CI’s basis of knowledge was not adequately shown, so probable cause lacking; warrant invalid |
| Whether omission of Belknap’s valid medical marijuana card from the affidavit was a material reckless omission | Omission did not negate probable cause or was not material if affidavit otherwise sufficient | Failure to disclose registration was contested as a material omission showing reckless disregard for the truth | Court did not decide this issue because affidavit failed on other grounds; expressed concern about nondisclosure but remanded |
| Whether officers have an affirmative duty to investigate target’s licensing under the Compassionate Use Act | (Implicit) No need to exhaustively investigate licensing if probable cause exists | Argued officers should check for lawful registration that may negate probable cause | Court did not reach this question because it resolved the case on probable cause insufficiency |
| Whether aggregate of general observations and officer’s experience can supply probable cause | Officer’s training and CI reliability plus generalized conclusions support probable cause | Generalized conclusions without underlying circumstances are insufficient to establish CI’s first-hand basis | Court held that aggregating defective, conclusory bits cannot add up to probable cause; details required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williamson, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376 (establishes substantial-basis standard for reviewing warrant affidavits)
- State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 784 P.2d 30 (requires affidavit to show CI veracity and basis of knowledge)
- State v. Baca, 97 N.M. 379, 640 P.2d 485 (conclusory informant assertions insufficient; need detail to show first-hand knowledge)
- State v. Haidle, 285 P.3d 668 (detailed description can compensate for lack of explicit basis of knowledge; officer conclusions must be objectively reasonable)