State v. Gurule, 150 N.M. 49

Special Agent Kinch investigated distribution of child pornography via an ultra-peer site and linked a computer at Defendants’ home to the activity.
An affidavit sought a warrant to seize, among other items, a digital camera tied to the home’s occupants, asserting a nexus to child pornography.
The warrant was issued; during the search, officers seized a Sony Cybershot camera from a closet near the computer.
Forensic analysis months later revealed images of Gurule with a prepubescent girl, identified as Davis’s granddaughter.
Defendants moved to suppress the camera evidence; the district court found standing and suppressed the camera seizure for lack of probable cause.
The district court also excluded certain testimony and a co-defendant statement as tainted by the illegal seizure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge seizure	Gurule and Davis lacked standing due to ownership/consent issues.	Defendants had a legitimate privacy interest in the dwelling and camera purchases; standing exists.	Defendants had standing to challenge the seizure.
Probable cause to seize the camera	Affidavit linked the camera to the crime via the home and IP connections; seizure was proper.	No direct link showing the camera contained evidence; seizure overly broad for a single device.	No probable cause to seize the camera; suppression affirmed.
Fruit of the poisonous tree – witness testimony	Tainted testimony should be admitted under exception or independent source principles.	Testimony tainted by illegal search should be suppressed.	Testimony properly excluded as tainted by the illegal seizure.
Co-defendant statement and Bruton/Crawford	Statements by co-defendant’s son should be admissible under ongoing investigation context.	Co-defendant’s out-of-court statements implicating Gurule violate Bruton and Crawford principles.	Statements excluded; Bruton/Crawford concerns upheld.

United States v. Caymen, 404 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2005) (standing requires a privacy expectation reflected in ownership or control)
Hinahara v. State, 2007-NMCA-116 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (digital evidence warrants require particularity and appropriate nexus)
Van Dang, 138 N.M. 408 (2005-NMSC-033) (consent-based standing requires some evidence of owner’s permission)
State v. Evans, 146 N.M. 319 (2009-NMSC-027) (probable cause standard for warrants in criminal investigations)
State v. Gonzales, 133 N.M. 158 (2003-NMCA-008) (probable cause and warrant sufficiency framework; scope of search)
State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431 (1993) (exclusionary rule and fruits-of-the-poisonous-tree principles in NM)
Brobst, 558 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2009) (specificity and breadth of search warrants; Fourth Amendment limits)
State v. Williamson, 146 N.M. 488 (2009-NMSC-039) (deferential review standard for probable cause in warrants)