State v. Wood, 36,207

Background

Police sought a warrant to search Jeremy Wood’s apartment based on an informant’s tip that Wood possessed firearms, tools, and drug paraphernalia and had hidden guns in the apartment vent system.
The informant told the affiant he had recently smoked methamphetamine and marijuana with Wood using three pipes belonging to Wood and described the pipes in detail.
The informant also admitted he had violated parole by using drugs with Wood, which could increase the risk of parole revocation.
The affiant independently confirmed Wood’s felony conviction status. A saliva test of the informant was positive for controlled substances (the informant’s test occurred before the affiant’s arrival).
The district court granted Wood’s motion to suppress; the State appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the warrant affidavit established probable cause.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Wood's Argument	Held
Informant credibility for probable cause	Affidavit gave substantial basis for believing informant reliable (detailed firsthand observations and admission against penal interest)	Informant unreliable; had motive to shift blame and was allegedly intoxicated when speaking to police (facts not in affidavit)	Affidavit contained sufficient indicia of reliability; court limited to affidavit’s four corners and rejected facts not in affidavit
Statement against penal interest	Informant’s admission of parole-violating drug use with Wood was against penal interest and directly corroborated drugs/paraphernalia claim	Such admissions were insufficiently connected to the suspected crime or occurred while informant in custody, undermining trustworthiness	Statement was closely related to drug evidence sought and met Barker requirements because it increased risk of parole revocation at time made
Corroboration of firearms allegation & double hearsay	Affiant’s independent check of Wood’s felony status corroborated informant’s claim about unlawful firearm possession; double hearsay does not automatically invalidate probable cause	Firearms claim not against informant’s penal interest and lacked independent corroboration; double hearsay unreliable	Independent corroboration (defendant’s felony status) supported the firearms allegation; double hearsay in affidavit did not by itself defeat probable cause
Staleness of information	Affidavit showed informant’s statements were recent (one-day-old) and not stale; statements about hiding guns in vents showed ongoing risk of discovery	Information was stale (events occurred days earlier) and statements suggested attempts to dispose of guns, reducing reliability	Even if up to two days old, information was not stale given recency and ongoing concealment; warrant supported probable cause

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hernandez, 122 N.M. 809, 932 P.2d 499 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (probable cause from informant tip requires reliability and basis of knowledge)
State v. Barker, 114 N.M. 589, 844 P.2d 839 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (statement against penal interest can support informant reliability if fear of prosecution existed when made)
State v. Williamson, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376 (N.M. 2009) (review of a warrant is limited to the four corners of the affidavit)
State v. Vest, 149 N.M. 548, 252 P.3d 772 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishing relevance of admissions against penal interest)
State v. Perea, 85 N.M. 505, 513 P.2d 1287 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973) (double hearsay in affidavits does not automatically defeat probable cause)
State v. Alderete, 88 N.M. 14, 536 P.2d 278 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975) (double hearsay can support probable cause if underlying information would have done so directly)
State v. Lovato, 118 N.M. 155, 879 P.2d 787 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (probable cause requires showing that evidence likely exists at premises at time of application)
In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (court may treat unsupported arguments as waived)
Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (court may decline to address cursory or undeveloped arguments)