State v. Davis, 263 P.3d 953

State police, with National Guard help, conducted air surveillance and ground searches to identify marijuana plantations in Taos County, using helicopters and multiple agencies.
Spotters directed officers to Defendant’s property, alleging vegetation in a greenhouse and plants behind the house, prompting a large armed police presence on the premises.
Officer Merrell told Defendant the helicopter was looking for marijuana and asked for consent to search; after some hesitation, Defendant gave consent and signed a form.
Officers discovered marijuana and paraphernalia on the property, leading to charges of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia; a suppression motion was denied by the district court.
Defendant entered a conditional plea; on appeal, the court considers whether consent was voluntary and whether the air surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment, ultimately reversing the suppression denial.
The court reconvened the suppression record to address missing portions of testimony, with the decision ultimately turning on the voluntariness of consent under totality-of-circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Defendant's consent to search voluntary?	Davis	Davis	Consent not voluntary; coerced under totality of circumstances
Did helicopter surveillance violate the Fourth Amendment or taint consent?	State	Davis	Not addressed; court addressed only voluntariness of consent

State v. Paul T., 128 N.M. 360 (1999-NMSC-037) (three-tier voluntariness analysis for consent)
State v. Flores, 122 N.M. 84 (1996-NMCA-059) (three-factor framework for voluntariness with presumption against waiver)
Chapman, 127 N.M. 721 (1999-NMCA-106) (coercion factors and explicit vs. implied consent considerations)
Shaulis-Powell, 127 N.M. 667 (1999-NMCA-090) (distinguishing officer’s coercive statements from mere assessment of warrant likelihood)
Dale v. State, 38 P.3d 910 (2002 OK CR 1) (coercive circumstances on consent including armed presence and helicopter overhead)