State v. Casares, 2014 NMCA 024

Early-morning shooting outside Victim’s residence after repeated confrontations and calls from Defendant; Victim heard two shots and later received calls from Defendant asking "how many?"
Police recovered a bullet from a vehicle in front of Victim’s house and phone-call records linking Defendant to the time frame.
Detective Argo obtained a warrant authorizing seizure of nine categories: firearms, accessories, ammunition, spent casings, projectiles, ID items, fingerprints, a cellular phone, and photography of the residence/evidence.
Executing officers seized a semi-automatic pistol (with magazine and rounds), additional ammunition, a Nokia flip phone, and took photographs; no fingerprints were seized and no photos were taken of items outside the warrant.
After arrest, Defendant (hearing impaired) was read Miranda warnings, given a written copy, read the warnings aloud, signed a waiver, and made incriminating statements. He moved to suppress evidence from the search and his statements.
The district court denied both suppression motions; Defendant conditionally pleaded no contest and appealed the suppression rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/particularity of search warrant	State: warrant described items and supported seizure of listed evidence	Defendant: warrant was overly broad because items 7 ("fingerprints") and 9 ("photography of the ... evidence") lacked particularity, justifying suppression of all seized evidence	Court: even if those two entries lacked particularity, suppression is limited to improperly described items; no fingerprints or extra photos were taken, and no flagrant disregard shown — denial of suppression affirmed
Miranda adequacy for hearing-impaired suspect	State: Miranda warnings were given, defendant read written copy and waived knowingly and voluntarily	Defendant: Miranda was incomplete because he was not told he had a right to a free sign-language interpreter under the Rehabilitation Act/regulatory guidance	Court: defendant failed to prove the police agency received federal funds (so Rehab Act may not apply); in any event, no citation showing that noncompliance would mandate suppression and Defendant did not claim he failed to understand or waive — denial of suppression affirmed

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (recognition of warnings and waiver requirements for custodial interrogation)
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (Fifth Amendment applied to states)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (particularity requirement aims to prevent general exploratory rummaging)
State v. Gurule, 150 N.M. 49 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (particularity has two dimensions; improper items may be severed and suppressed individually)
State v. Jacobs, 129 N.M. 448 (N.M. 2000) (only improperly seized evidence suppressed absent flagrant disregard)
State v. Patscheck, 129 N.M. 296 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (rejecting blanket suppression where officers did not flagrantly disregard warrant)
United States v. Le, 173 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 1999) (supporting limited suppression absent flagrant disregard)