State v. Sublet
150 N.M. 378
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Undercover detective bought cocaine in an apartment with Salvato; Defendant was present in the apartment.
- Occupants were detained outside after the entry and arrest signal; officers later re-entered the apartment without a warrant.
- The detective observed Defendant appear to hide money in a closet hole; money was later found by officers during the search.
- Defendant was charged with trafficking, conspiracy, and tampering; he moved to suppress the closet evidence as a warrantless search.
- District court found Defendant had standing and that exigent circumstances justified the sweep, but denied suppression; on appeal, the State preserved Article II, Section 10 issues and Defendant challenged the re-entry and search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the apartment search | State contends Sublet lacked standing as no privacy interest. | Sublet had actual/subjective privacy; paid rent and resided with permission. | Sublet had standing to challenge the search. |
| Abandonment of buy-money in the closet | Money was abandoned by Defendant placing it in the closet. | No clear, unequivocal abandonment; money remained subject to privacy interests. | There was no abandonment; defendant retained privacy interest. |
| Exigency/protective-sweep justifying reentry and closet search | Exigency and protective-sweep justified the reentry and search. | No exigency or valid protective-sweep; warrant was feasible. | Exigency and protective-sweep not shown; search unlawful. |
| Plain-view and basis for seizure of buy-money | Buy-money was in plain view or otherwise lawfully seized. | No plain-view foundation; money was not visible as to support plain view; unlawful search. | Plain-view excuse rejected; search unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zamora, 137 N.M. 301 (2005-NMCA-039) (recognizes standing analysis for privacy in premises)
- State v. Leyva, 149 N.M. 435 (2011-NMSC-009) (mixed question of law and fact; de novo review of reasonableness)
- State v. Sewell, 146 N.M. 428 (2009-NMSC-033) (standard for suppression review; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Funderburg, 144 N.M. 37 (2008-NMSC-026) (fourth amendment analysis framework)
- State v. Vandenberg, 134 N.M. 566 (2003-NMSC-030) (precedes on standing; totality approach)
- State v. Ryon, 137 N.M. 174 (2005-NMSC-005) (privacy in dwelling; high protection for home)
- State v. Bomboy, 144 N.M. 151 (2008-NMSC-029) (plain view and possession principles in NM)
- United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 (1951) (seizure and search linked in purpose; cannot easily untie)