State v. Ramos
2017 NMCA 41
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 7, 2013 police responded to a reported domestic incident at Defendant Aaron Ramos’s apartment. The alleged victim, Brittney Priddy, had been staying at the apartment for a few days but was not on the lease and did not possess her own key.
- Priddy asked officers to help retrieve her and her child’s belongings after an altercation; she told officers she had been staying there recently and that her items were inside. Officers obtained a key from building maintenance and entered the second-story unit.
- Officers “cleared” the residence for safety, photographed and seized items they believed to be drug paraphernalia in plain view, and later charged Ramos with possession of methamphetamine (and initially with paraphernalia and domestic battery). The paraphernalia charge was dismissed pretrial; Ramos was later convicted of meth possession and acquitted of the household battery.
- Ramos moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing the entry and search were warrantless and no valid exception (consent, protective sweep, community-caretaker/emergency aid, or FVPA) applied. The district court denied suppression, relying on apparent consent, the Family Violence Protection Act (FVPA), and the community-caretaker doctrine.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed whether a third party (Priddy) had actual common authority to consent, whether a protective sweep or the FVPA/emergency-aid branch of the community-caretaker doctrine justified the entry, and whether the warrantless intrusion was therefore lawful.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ramos's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of third-party consent to enter/search apartment | Priddy had common authority to consent because she stayed there, had access, shared bedroom/key at times, and stored belongings | Priddy was a short-term guest without a key or right to occupy; she lacked actual common authority | Held: Priddy did NOT have actual common authority; apparent authority is insufficient under New Mexico law, so consent exception fails |
| Protective sweep justification | Officers reasonably cleared apartment for officer and victim safety given uncertainty who was inside and reports Defendant might have a firearm | No arrest occurred and facts did not supply specific, articulable reasons to believe someone in the apartment posed a danger | Held: Protective sweep not justified because it must be incident to a lawful arrest and supported by specific articulable facts; neither existed |
| FVPA or community-caretaker exception authorizes warrantless entry | FVPA requires officers to assist victims (including accompanying them to retrieve belongings); community-caretaker/emergency-aid permits non-crime-solving intrusions | FVPA does not authorize warrantless entry; community-caretaker/emergency-aid requires a genuine emergency with credible specific information of imminent harm | Held: FVPA does not create a standalone exception to the warrant requirement; emergency-aid branch requires credible, specific info of immediate danger—none present here; community-caretaker doctrine (automobile branch) not applicable to home entry |
| Suppression remedy and severance issue | N/A (State defended denial) | Evidence should be suppressed and conviction reversed; severance moot because Ramos was acquitted of battery | Held: Suppression should have been granted; denial of motion to suppress reversed and case remanded; severance arguments moot due to acquittal on battery |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryon, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2005) (clarifies community-caretaker doctrine and holds only a genuine emergency justifies warrantless home entry under emergency-aid branch)
- State v. Wright, 119 N.M. 559, 893 P.2d 455 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (rejects apparent authority for third-party consent under New Mexico Constitution)
- State v. Diaz, 122 N.M. 384, 925 P.2d 4 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (third-party consent invalid where primary occupant has superior privacy interest)
- State v. Walker, 125 N.M. 603, 964 P.2d 164 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (third-party cohabitant with established, extended access can have common authority to consent)
- State v. Jacobs, 129 N.M. 448, 10 P.3d 127 (N.M. 2000) (discusses protective sweep and officer safety in welfare of occupants but does not override arrest/incidental requirements)