State v. Boyse
2013 NMSC 024
N.M.2013Background
- Defendants were charged with numerous counts of animal cruelty; suppression motion challenged the warrant.
- Warrant obtained to search defendants’ property was approved by a magistrate judge via telephone.
- Officer Gray read a sworn written affidavit to the on-call judge who, after oath, approved the warrant over the phone.
- Magistrate later signed the warrant and affidavit; search executed at defendants’ property.
- Court denied suppression; Court of Appeals reversed, holding telephonic approval violated Article II, Section 10.
- New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve interpretation of the constitutional requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether telephonic approval complies with Article II, Section 10 | Boyse argues telephonic showings are prohibited by the plain text. | Boyse contends only a written showing seen by judge satisfies the clause. | Telephonic approval permissible under Article II, §10 |
| What constitutes satisfying the 'showing' requirement | Boyse asserts a written, viewable showing is required. | Boyse argues showing can be presented by audio or other senses. | Showing may be presented by audio or other sensory means, not solely written |
| Do policy arguments affect constitutionality of telephonic warrants | Adapt various safeguards from other jurisdictions to NM practice. | NM rules differ; external authorities are inapplicable or weaker reasoning. | Policy arguments rejected; telephonic warrants still valid under NM law |
Key Cases Cited
- Nick R. v. State, 147 N.M. 182 (2009-NMSC-050) (interpretation of statutory language using ordinary meaning)
- State v. Ortega, 117 N.M. 160 (1994) (warrant/surveillance standards and notice requirements)
- Malloy v. State, 131 N.M. 222 (2001-NMCA-067) (importance of affidavit to establish probable cause)
- State v. Davis, 134 N.M. 172 (2003-NMSC-022) (interpretation of constitutional provisions; spirit of the rule)
- State v. Trujillo, 146 N.M. 14 (2009-NMSC-012) (obvious spirit of constitutional provisions governs interpretation)
- State v. Lynch, 134 N.M. 139 (2003-NMSC-020) (canon of constitutional interpretation; drafters’ intent)
- State v. Ordunez, 283 P.3d 282 (2012-NMSC-024) (de novo review; constitutional interpretation framework)
- State v. Balenquah, 146 N.M. 267 (2009-NMCA-055) (affidavit requirement for valid warrants)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 555 N.E.2d 1218 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (procedural safeguards for telephonic warrants (out-of-state))