State v. Sanchez, 476 P.3d 889

On December 18–19, 2017 police seized Gabriel Sanchez’s cell phone during a tribal-court-authorized search and obtained a warrant to search the phone on December 19, 2017.
Initial forensic extraction at the RCFL failed because the phone was locked; the phone remained in police custody.
On November 5, 2018 updated forensic tools unlocked the phone and agents copied its contents to an external drive; a second warrant to search the phone was obtained December 26, 2018 and the return stated a digital copy had been seized on November 5.
Sanchez moved to suppress the phone data, arguing the extraction on November 5, 2018 violated Rule 5-211(C)’s ten-day execution requirement and that the December 19, 2017 warrant was stale; the district court granted suppression on the ten-day ground.
The State appealed interlocutorily; the Supreme Court reversed suppression (holding Rule 5-211(C) was not violated) and affirmed the district court’s exclusion of evidence of a fire at the victim’s home (excluded under Rule 11-404(B) because the State lacked admissible evidence connecting Sanchez to the fire).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether extracting data from a seized cell phone 11 months after a warrant was issued violated Rule 5-211(C)’s 10-day execution requirement	The State: a warrant to search electronically stored information is "executed" when the device is seized or when on-site copying occurs; if the device was in police custody within 10 days, later off-site extraction is not barred	Sanchez: the extraction on Nov 5, 2018 occurred 11 months after the Dec 19, 2017 warrant, so the search was outside the 10-day execution window and thus warrantless	Held: Warrant is executed for Rule 5-211(C) purposes when the device is seized or on-site copied. Because Sanchez’s phone was lawfully seized and in police custody within 10 days of the warrant, later extraction did not violate Rule 5-211(C); suppression reversed
Whether evidence of a fire at the victim’s home was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) as other-act evidence	The State: the fire evidence was relevant to motive, intent, or plan and should be admitted under 11-404(B)(2)	Sanchez: the fire evidence was impermissible character evidence and the State lacked admissible proof linking him to the fire	Held: The district court did not abuse its discretion excluding the fire evidence because the State offered no admissible evidence connecting Sanchez to the fire (proffered link relied on inadmissible hearsay); exclusion affirmed

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant generally required to search cell phones)
United States v. Carrington, [citation="700 F. App'x 224"] (4th Cir. 2017) (delay in phone search did not violate federal execution rule where device already in custody)
United States v. Huart, 735 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting warrant for phone may be executed when phone is seized)
State v. Elam, 108 N.M. 268, 771 P.2d 597 (definition of when a warrant is executed)
State v. Smallwood, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 (Supreme Court jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in life-sentence cases)
State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Malloy, 131 N.M. 222, 34 P.3d 611 (not all procedural-rule violations require suppression)