295 P.3d 1072
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- In State v. Jean-Paul, NM Court of Appeals reviews suppression of evidence from a search warrant at Pebbles Jean-Paul’s home after a knock-and-announce.
- Officers observed a person near a window inside the home during approach; they knocked, announced, then struck the door with a battering ram about four seconds after beginning the knock-and-announce.
- Drugs and drug paraphernalia were found inside; Defendant moved to suppress the evidence claiming violation of knock-and-announce and lack of valid exceptions.
- District court denied suppression; Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the denial.
- The court applies an interstitial approach: first determine federal constitutional protection; if applicable, state constitution is not reached, otherwise NM state-law protections are considered.
- Key issue is whether a one-second wait after announcing was reasonable under Article II, Section 10, given the surrounding circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the one-second wait after knock-and-announce reasonable under Article II, Section 10? | State argues futility or exigent circumstances apply. | Jean-Paul argues the wait was too short to be reasonable and admissible. | One-second wait not reasonable; suppression required. |
| Did futility or exigent-circumstances exceptions apply here? | State contends Dickson’s presence near the window created reasonable suspicion of need to enter. | Jean-Paul contends no evidence of destruction risk or danger justified skipping knock-and-announce. | Neither exception established; knock-and-announce required entry wait. |
| Does the interstitial approach require addressing federal rights before state rights in this case? | State relies on interstitial approach to interpret rights and remedies. | Jean-Paul challenges federal-versus-state remedy alignment. | Proceed under Article II, Section 10; Attaway controls the remedy, suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (Sup. Ct. (1995)) (knock-and-announce requirement applies; awaits reasonable time before entry)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (Sup. Ct. (2006)) (exclusionary remedy not required for knock-and-announce violation under federal law)
- Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 870 P.2d 103 (N.M. Supreme Court (1994)) (state remedy suppression for knock-and-announce violation; pre-Hudson framing)
- Vargas, 2008-NMSC-019, 143 N.M. 692, 181 P.3d 684 (N.M. Supreme Court (2008)) (futility exception based on occupants’ knowledge; not universally applicable)
- Lopez, 2005-NMSC-018, 138 N.M. 9, 116 P.3d 80 (N.M. Supreme Court (2005)) (exigent circumstances may dispense with knock-and-announce when applicable)
- Johnson, 2006-NMSC-049, 140 N.M. 653, 146 P.3d 298 (N.M. Supreme Court (2006)) (wait time assessed by time to answer, not destruction-risk time under standard rule)
- Hand, 2008-NMSC-014, 143 N.M. 530, 178 P.3d 165 (N.M. Supreme Court (2008)) (standard for deference to district findings; de novo on constitutional question)