State v. Boyse, 303 P.3d 830

Magistrate approved search warrant for animal-cruelty property via telephone after oath and reading a written affidavit.
Affidavit established probable cause for extreme animal cruelty on Defendants’ property.
Warrant execution occurred promptly; officer later received magistrate’s signature and initials.
Defendants moved to suppress evidence arguing telephone approval violated Article II, Section 10 NM Const.
Court of Appeals reversed, requiring in-person viewing of the written showing; NM Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court held telephonic approval complies with NM Const. when the showing is presented by audible means.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article II, §10 allows telephonic showing of probable cause	Boyse argues showing must be written and viewed	Boyse argues telephonic showing violates the constitution	Telephonic showing permitted under §10
Whether ‘showing’ requires judge to see writing	Showings must be visual	Showings can be oral/auditory	Showings may be oral/auditory presentations
Policy safeguards of telephonic warrants	Federal and other jurisdictions require extra safeguards	NM rules should mirror safeguards	Policy arguments rejected; telephonic process consistent with NM Constitution

State v. Ortega, 117 N.M. 160 (1994) (probable cause; warrants require a sworn showing and notice)
Malloy v. State, 131 N.M. 222 (2001-NMCA-067) (affidavit standard for probable cause; notice requirements)
State v. Davis, 134 N.M. 172 (2003-NMSC-022) (plain meaning vs. spirit of constitution; avoid absurd results)
State v. Trujillo, 146 N.M. 14 (2009-NMSC-012) (interpretation of constitutional search-warrant provisions)
Nick R. v. State, 147 N.M. 182 (2009-NMSC-050) (dictionary-based interpretation of statutory language)