State v. Crocco, 2014 NMSC 016

Crocco was convicted of aggravated DWI following a trial where no suppression motion was filed challenging police entry into Michael's house.
Officers entered Michael's home without a warrant after knocking and announcing themselves when no one answered the door.
Defendant was found asleep inside, smelled of alcohol, and subsequently arrested after field sobriety tests and breath tests.
Defense counsel later argued ineffective assistance for failing to file a suppression motion; the district court denied standing to challenge the entry.
Court of Appeals reversed, but this Court granted certiorari to review standing and the lawfulness of the entry; majority held standing was not shown on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge the entry into third-party home	Crocco lacked standing; no evidence he was a guest with permission.	Crocco had a legitimate expectation of privacy as a houseguest with permission to be there.	No prima facie standing; record insufficient to prove guest status.
Ineffective assistance on direct appeal	Counsel failed to file suppression motion; prejudice shown.	Record supports ineffectiveness and lack of standing; evidentiary development needed.	Record insufficient to establish prima facie ineffective assistance; habeas corpus proceeding necessary for development.
Applicability of emergency assistance/exigent circumstances	Entry justified by safety concerns and exigent circumstances.	Entry lacked proper basis; suppression should apply if standing existed.	Not reached; other issues deemed sufficient to resolve without this determination.
Necessity of a factual record for standing	Record demonstrates permission and guest status.	Record shows no evidence of permission or guest status.	Without evidence of permission, standing not shown.

State v. Van Dang, 138 N.M. 408 (NMSC 2005) (standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy; third-party premises)
Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (presence in home not by itself a privacy interest; standing concerns)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (overnight guests may have reasonable expectation of privacy)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (standing is personal to Fourth Amendment rights)
State v. Leyba, 123 N.M. 159 (NMCA 1997) (guest status and privacy expectations in host's home)
State v. Arrendondo, 278 P.3d 517 (NMSC 2012) (ineffective assistance claims assessed de novo; habeas corpus preferred for record development)
State v. Tafoya, 285 P.3d 604 (NMSC 2012) (ineffective assistance standard; de novo review)
State v. Stenz, 109 N.M. 536 (NMCA 1990) (motion not filed where record supports suppression being unlikely)
State v. Hensel, 106 N.M. 8 (NMCA 1987) (mere presence not enough for standing)
State v. Wright, 1995 NMCA 016 (NMCA 1995) (standing for houseguests permitted by owner)