State v. Hamilton, 290 P.3d 271

Defendant Hamilton faced drug trafficking, possession, and paraphernalia charges after Santa Fe Police conducted three controlled buys with a confidential informant.
Police sought a warrant to search a residence at 226 Artist Road and surrounding curtilage based on CI information and surveillance.
Officers entered the main house, observed Defendant and his brother exiting a detached backyard guesthouse, and drug-sniffing dogs alerted in the guesthouse but not the main house.
Guesthouse is a self-contained, separately accessible dwelling with its own kitchen, bath, utilities, and locking; it lacks a separate street address and is not expressly named in the warrant.
The district court suppressed all evidence from the warrantless guesthouse search, and the State appeals, arguing the guesthouse was within curtilage or, alternatively, that Sero-based exceptions apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guesthouse was within the main house’s curtilage.	State: proximity and common enclosure imply curtilage inclusion.	Hamilton: guesthouse is a separate residence, not within curtilage.	Not within curtilage; guesthouse treated as a separate residence requiring independent probable cause.
Whether the warrant’s lack of explicit mention of the guesthouse invalidates the search, or whether exceptions apply.	State argues curtilage reasoning or Sero-based exceptions validate the search.	Hamilton contends warrant not sufficiently particular and no applicable exception.	Warrant not sufficiently particular to cover the guesthouse; Sero does not apply here; suppression upheld.
Whether Sero’s multi-unit-property rationale applies to two independent residences on one property.	State contends Sero would authorize the search under exceptions.	Hamilton argues Sero is inapplicable to independent, separately occupied residences.	Sero not applicable; cannot justify the warrantless guesthouse search.

Sero v. State, 82 N.M. 17 (Ct. App. 1970) (addressed multi-unit buildings but not separate residences on same property; not controlling where two independent residences are involved.)
State v. Sutton, 112 N.M. 449 (Ct. App. 1991) (curtilage factors and proximity guide privacy expectations.)
State v. Diaz, 1996-NMCA-104 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (adult child’s privacy in his own bedroom greater than in shared areas.)
State v. Monteleone, 2005-NMCA-129 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (home privacy considerations extend to separate, resident units.)
State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006 (N.M. S. Ct. 1997) (New Mexico recognizes Fourth Amendment protections; preserves Article II, §10 rights.)
Winston v. State, 2010-NMCA-020 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (two-part standard of review for suppression motions; substantial evidence then de novo law application.)
State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017 (N.M. S. Ct. 2001) (exclusionary rule under NM Constitution requires suppression for violations.)
State v. Gutierrez, 1993-NMSC-021 (N.M. S. Ct. 1993) (rejects good-faith exception under NM Constitution.)