State v. Ramos, 34,410

Background

Police responded March 7, 2013 to a reported domestic disturbance at Ramos’s apartment; the alleged victim (Priddy) was outside and asked officers to retrieve her and her child’s clothing and effects from inside.
Priddy had been staying with Ramos for 2–4 days, shared the bedroom with him, kept some clothes at the apartment, did not pay rent, and did not have her own key (sometimes entered when Ramos let her in or door unlocked).
Officers obtained a key from maintenance, entered the second‑floor unit, cleared it for safety, and either brought a box of Priddy’s clothing downstairs or assisted her in collecting it (testimony conflicted).
During the entry/clearance Officer Freeman observed drug paraphernalia in plain view; items were photographed and seized and later led to a possession charge against Ramos (paraphernalia charge later dismissed; meth possession proceeded).
Ramos moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrantless entry/search violated the New Mexico Constitution; the district court denied suppression relying on apparent authority, the Family Violence Protection Act (FVPA), community‑caretaker and protective‑sweep rationales.
The Court of Appeals reversed: it held Priddy lacked actual common authority to consent, apparent authority is not enough under Article II, Section 10, and no applicable emergency/protective‑sweep/community‑caretaker exception or FVPA authorization existed to justify the warrantless entry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether third‑party consent validated the warrantless entry	Priddy had common authority (shared bedroom, access, kept belongings) so her consent authorized entry	Priddy was a short‑term houseguest with no key and inferior privacy interest; she lacked actual common authority	Held for Ramos: Priddy did not have actual common authority; apparent authority insufficient under NM constitution
Whether a protective sweep justified the entry/search	Officers reasonably cleared unit for safety given reports someone might be inside and possible firearm	No arrest had occurred; facts (Priddy unsure who was inside, Ramos likely left) did not supply specific articulable facts for a protective sweep	Held for Ramos: protective sweep not justified because not incident to a lawful arrest and lacked specific, articulable facts of danger
Whether the FVPA or community‑caretaker doctrine authorized warrantless entry	FVPA imposes duty to assist victims to retrieve immediate needs; entry was reasonable and protective caretaking applied	FVPA does not create a warrantless‑entry exception; community‑caretaker emergency branch requires a genuine emergency with credible, specific information	Held for Ramos: FVPA does not authorize warrantless entry; community‑caretaker/emergency‑aid doctrine not satisfied (no credible specific emergency)
Whether evidence seized should be suppressed	Evidence observed in plain view during a lawful entry/community caretaking was admissible	Evidence resulted from an unlawful warrantless entry; suppression required	Held for Ramos: evidence should have been suppressed; denial of suppression reversed and case remanded

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wright, 893 P.2d 455 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (third‑party consent requires actual authority; apparent authority insufficient under NM Constitution)
State v. Diaz, 925 P.2d 4 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (homeowner’s consent insufficient to authorize search of adult son’s private room absent joint access and mutual use)
State v. Walker, 964 P.2d 164 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (long‑term co‑occupant with possessions and access may have common authority to consent)
State v. Ryon, 108 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2005) (distinguishes emergency‑aid branch of community‑caretaker doctrine for warrantless home entries; only genuine emergencies justify entry)
State v. Valdez, 806 P.2d 578 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (recognizes protective sweep rule as exception in limited circumstances)
State v. Jacobs, 10 P.3d 127 (N.M. 2000) (upholding a warrantless home entry as part of a protective sweep under appropriate conditions)
State v. Trudelle, 162 P.3d 173 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (protective sweep allowed only incident to lawful arrest and upon specific articulable facts)