State v. Gurule
256 P.3d 992
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Agent Kinch investigated distribution of child pornography on an ultra-peer site (Gnutella) and traced activity to a computer at Defendants' home; affidavit claimed residents were receiving/possessing/distributing child pornography but did not show actual child pornography at the home; affidavit sought seizure of a digital camera among other items.
- Warrant issued September 27, 2007 based on Kinch's affidavit; during the September 28, 2007 search, officers seized a Sony Cybershot camera from a closet near the computer room.
- Forensic analysis on February 5, 2008 revealed images of Gurule engaging in sexual acts with a prepubescent girl—later identified as Davis's four-year-old granddaughter.
- Defendants moved to suppress; district court denied/overruled the suppression motion for standing and evidence, but ultimately suppressed the camera finding, and excluded certain testimony and a co-defendant statement on confrontation grounds.
- State appealed under NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B)(2); issues centered on standing to challenge the seizure, probable cause to seize the camera, and tainted or Bruton/Crawford-related testimony and statements.
- CourtAFFIRMed the suppression ruling, holding Defendants had standing to challenge the camera seizure, no probable cause to seize the camera, and proper exclusion of tainted testimony and co-defendant statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the camera seizure | Gurule lacked standing due to alleged purchase with stolen card | Gurule and Davis jointly purchased the camera; shared residence gives privacy | Defendants had standing to challenge the seizure |
| Probable cause to seize the digital camera | Affidavit linked camera to child pornography; nexus supported seizure | No evidence the camera held child porn; storage device not tied to crime | No probable cause to seize the camera; suppression affirmed |
| Fruit of the poisonous tree | Evidence tainted by illegal seizure should be admissible under exception | Exclusion necessary to deter illegal conduct | Exclusion sustained; tainted testimony suppressed |
| Co-defendant Bruton/Crawford issue (co-defendant statement) | Statements would be admissible; Crawford limits irrelevant statements | Confrontation rights require exclusion of co-defendant statements | Statements excluded as within core testimonial Bruton/Crawford framework |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zamora, 137 N.M. 301, 110 P.3d 517 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (standing in home privacy for privacy expectations)
- State v. Van Dang, 138 N.M. 408, 120 P.3d 830 (N.M. S. Ct. 2005) (consent-based standing requires some evidence of consent)
- State v. Hinahara, 142 N.M. 475, 166 P.3d 1129 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (court-approved broad nexus test for items connected to crime)
- State v. Donaldson, 100 N.M. 111, 666 P.2d 1258 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (particularity and breadth of warrants; severance considerations)
- State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 863 P.2d 1052 (N.M. 1993) (New Mexico suppression rule; fruits of unlawful searches excluded)
- State v. Wagoner, 2001-NMCA-014, 130 N.M. 274, 24 P.3d 306 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (independent-source/attenuation doctrine considerations)