State v. Cordova
2016 NMCA 019
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant drove a pickup that crossed the center line and struck a group of motorcyclists; several were injured and one died. Defendant and two passengers abandoned the vehicle and fled the scene.
- Deputies investigating the crash ran the truck plate, learned it was registered to Defendant, and were told where Defendant lived. Two deputies (one off-duty) went to his residence.
- Deputies testified the front door was ajar (accounts varied), announced themselves, and entered with guns drawn; they located Defendant on his bed, detained him, found car keys on his person, and later charged him.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized after the warrantless entry, arguing the entry violated the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution. The district court denied the motion, finding the entry justified under the emergency assistance doctrine.
- Defendant was convicted on multiple counts (including homicide by vehicle and aggravated DWI). On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the suppression motion, concluding deputies lacked reasonable grounds to believe a genuine emergency existed that justified the warrantless entry. The court affirmed sufficiency of evidence on one challenged conviction so retrial on that charge is allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies’ warrantless entry was justified by the emergency assistance doctrine | Entry was justified because deputies were concerned for Defendant’s safety after a serious crash and sightings of people fleeing the vehicle | Deputants lacked specific, credible information that Defendant was at home and in need of immediate aid; entry violated Fourth Amendment | Reversed: State failed to meet its burden — no reasonable grounds for a genuine emergency to justify immediate entry |
| Whether deputies’ subjective intent (arrest/evidence gathering) invalidates entry | Subjective motivation irrelevant under Brigham City; objective emergency controls | Argued deputies’ actions were effectively an investigative arrest, not a welfare entry | Court notes subjective motive immaterial but finds entry unlawful because objective emergency element not met |
| Whether evidence seized after entry should be suppressed | Evidence admissible because entry was lawful under emergency exception | Evidence must be suppressed as fruit of unlawful entry | Court suppressed evidence obtained from the entry by reversing denial of suppression |
| Whether sufficient evidence supported conviction for great bodily injury by vehicle (for double jeopardy retrial question) | Evidence of prolonged impairment (month off work, immobilizing pain) supported great bodily injury | Argues injuries did not meet statutory great bodily injury definition | Held sufficient evidence supported the conviction; retrial on that charge not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryon, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2005) (adopting three-part emergency-assistance test)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (officers’ subjective motivation irrelevant to exigent‑circumstances analysis)
- State v. Vandenburg, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (N.M. 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- City of Fargo v. Ternes, 522 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1994) (blood or visible injuries inside vehicle can support emergency entry)
- State v. Baca, 141 N.M. 65, 150 P.3d 1015 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (speculation/conjecture insufficient to establish emergency)