Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides limits to law enforcement search and seizure procedures in order to protect individuals' privacy. Under the 4th Amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures carried out by law enforcement officials are forbidden, Perhaps most importantly, any evidence gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissible in Court.

The 4th Amendment prohibits police officers from entering your house or your workplace, searching your backpacks, purses, or any other private personal item, among other private matters, in the absence of either probable cause or consent to the search.

Unfortunately, the protections of the 4th Amendment do not extend to illegal searches and seizures by non-governmental agents. Essentially, individuals may be subject to unreasonable and otherwise illegal search and seizure at the hands of a host of private actors such as landlords, employers, store employees, private security guards and the like. The New Mexico Supreme Court held as much in State v. Luis Santiago.

The lack of protection means that should a later court action be commenced, whether civil or criminal, 4th Amendment rights and remedies do not generally apply. As such, illegal search and seizure may as a basis for excluding the evidence

A not too uncommon example will illustrate the point. Mall security guards can be quite aggressive. On occasion, based upon pure hunch (to be generous), they may choose to search a teenager's backpack. In so doing, contraband such as marijuana or other drugs may be discovered. Mall security may then hold the teenager until police arrive, who coincidentally are often conveniently located nearby.

Even if the security guard lacked probable cause to search the teenager's backpack, the search would not be considered illegal. Moreover, the drugs would be admissible so long as it is not found that the mall security was acting as an arm or under the direction of law enforcement.

Determining whether or not the mall security was acting under the direction of law enforcement can be challenging at best. Perhaps more problematic are situations where mall security engage in profiling or other constitutionally suspect behavior that gives rise to the search to begin with. Unfortunately, this may be far more common than we would like to believe. This type of conduct gives rise to a whole new set of issues beyond the 4th Amendment.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The New Mexico Supreme Court once again reaffirms the greater protections afforded under the New Mexico Constitution than under the United States Constitution.

The ruling came in a case involving illegal search and seizure. The Court in State v. Erica Rivera readily acknowledged that the search and seizure would have passed muster under the 4th Amendment and federal case-law. However, the Court stated that Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution provided greater protections against unlawful search and seizure.

The facts of the case are interesting. Marijuana was shipped to the defendant in Albuquerque via El Paso-Los Angeles Limousine Express bus service. Unfortunately for Ms. Rivera, her package ended up in Denver. Bus employees found the package suspicious and opened it to find marijuana. The bus employees then reported it to a DEA agent who requested that the package be forwarded to Albuquerque. The bus employees complied resealing and shipping the package. Upon arrival, the DEA agent and bus employee in Albuquerque reopened the package. Ms. Riveras was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute

First, the Court noted the well established principle that 4th Amendment search and seizure rules do not apply to searches conducted by private parties. As such, the actions of the bus employees in opening the package did not give rise to a violation of the 4th Amendment. The Court further recognized the "private search doctrine" which allows a private search to be replicated by law enforcement.

The Court recognized that the search in this case would have met the requirements of the private search doctrine set forth in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Jacobsen. In so doing the court restated Jacobsen: "The rationale for this doctrine is that by conducting a search subsequent to the private search, the agent is not learning anything that he did not already know as a result of what was disclosed by the private search."

However, the Court stated that Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution has a very strong preference for a search warrant. There are a number of recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement: "exigent circumstances, consent, searches incident to arrest, plain view, inventory searches, open field, and hot pursuit." The court found that none of these exceptions were present in the Rivera case. The court could find no legitimate reason under the facts for the failure of the DEA agent to obtain a search warrant.

The court ruled that the evidence was rightfully suppressed by the trial court under Article II, Section 10 stating: "If the State conducts a search without a warrant and without sufficient grounds for an exception to the warrant requirement, we will suppress the evidence to effectuate in the pending case the constitutional right of the accused to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." The Court recognized throughout that the results would have been much different under federal law and the 4th Amendment.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

As part of the rehabilitative approach of the juvenile criminal justice system, judges, defense counsel, prosecutors, and juvenile probation take a progressive approach in dealing with juvenile delinquents. For example, each county will typically have its own drug court program which is an alternative to prosecuting a child with substance abuse issues.

Drug Court takes a progressive approach to juvenile substance abuse issues. Therapists, probation officers, and drug court staff help both the child and the child's family to address the substance abuse issue. The child and the parents participate in family counseling. The child will attend alcohol and substance abuse counseling. The child will also undergo random urine analysis. In addition, the child will participate in outdoor team based confidence building activities to help the child stay clean.

Drug Court is an option for juveniles who have a criminal history that includes drug or alcohol related offenses. Upon entry, the juvenile must have a clean urine analysis to establish base levels for future drug testing. Once admitted, there are four stages of Drug Court that the juvenile must complete. Stage one will not commence until the child has a clean urine test. Each stage must be completed prior to moving to the next stage.

Drug Court can be completed in six months if the juvenile takes it seriously and complies with all of the demands placed on him or her. However, if a juvenile commits a violation while in drug court, the Drug Court team will vote on the type of sanction that should be imposed on the juvenile.

Common violations include but are not limited to a missed or positive (dirty) urine test, curfew violations, new criminal charges and truancy. The sanctions vary from not being able to move to the next stage to house arrest. For repeated violations, the juvenile may be kicked out of the Drug Court program. Termination from Drug Court is considered a serious probation violation frequently resulting in immediate detention (lock-up).

In short, Drug Court is a rather progressive approach to juvenile drug offenses. However, it is a double-edged sword. Drug Court is very demanding of its participants. Many kids simply cannot meet the burdens of the program. Unfortunately for those kids, there are few remaining options other than detention.

Those kids that are sentenced to and successfully complete Drug Court often turn their lives around. For those, both the child and the parents are typically very grateful for the assistance Drug Court provides in dealing with a very serious problem before it has gotten out of hand.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

It is well established that individuals on probation have significantly fewer rights than the general population. One of the rights that is generally forfeited by a probationer is the right against search and seizure by the probation officer.

While on probation, the probation officer has a right and a duty to insure that the probationer is complying with the terms of probation. The terms of probation universally prohibit the use of illegal drugs while on probation. Likewise, a probation officer can order the probationer to cease contact with known felons or drug dealers.

These variables came together in the New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Sundae Bolin. In Bolin, local law enforcement was seeking to execute a warrant on an associate of Ms. Bolin who was suspected of drug trafficking. In order to try to locate the suspect, the police enlisted the aid of Bolin's probation officer.

Upon request of the police officers, the probation officer escorted the police to Bolin's residence where she was questioned about the suspect's whereabouts. The suspect was not present, nor was there any reason to believe the suspect would be present at Bolin's residence. After questioning Ms. Bolin about the location of the suspect, the police officers and probation officer began questioning Bolin about drug use. Ms. Bolin admitted drug use precipitating a search of the premises. Police discovered a variety of contraband for which Bolin was charged with trafficking a controlled substance.

Interestingly, the court noted that contact with felons or drug dealers is not necessarily a violation of probation unless there is an express prohibition against such contact. Nor is it a crime. As such, neither the police nor the probation officer had any reasonable basis for being at Ms. Bolin's home. Without grounds for presence at her home, they also lacked any basis for questioning her about her drug use which led to the search of her residence.

The Court made clear that probationers have a lessened expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment while on probation. The court also made clear that probation officers may call upon law enforcement in the performance of their duties. To the contrary, police may not enlist probation officers in their law enforcement duties. In short, the court would not allow a police investigation to be conducted under the pretense of a probationary visit.

The court found that when Bolin answered that the suspect was not there, the encounter should have ended. There was no legitimate law enforcement purpose for their continued presence, nor was there a legitimate probationary purpose. The probation officer was at Bolin's home purely for the purpose of assisting the police officers in a criminal investigation.

The Court found that the search and seizure upon which the charges against Bolin were illegal under the 4th Amendment. As such, the district court's decision to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the illegal search was upheld.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

California voters will vote on a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana. In the meantime, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill that reduces the penalties of the marijuana possession down to the level of a traffic violation. However, he remains opposed to the legalization and taxation of marijuana.

It might seem that reduction of the consequences of a marijuana conviction to a traffic ticket is sufficient to address the concerns of marijuana legalization activists. It does address a few. Reclassification of the offense will avoid criminalizing personal possession of a substance that an estimated 83 million Americans have tried. It avoids potentially criminalizing one half of the country's high school population that admits to trying marijuana before high school graduation. Perhaps most importantly, it will help to alleviate the hugely disproportionate impact marijuana criminalization has on minorities, particularly blacks and hispanics, who are far more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for the offense than similarly situated Anglos.

Despite the merits of reclassification, this solution does not go far enough. Marijuana continues to be classified as a controlled substance under State and Federal law. Reclassifying the seriousness of the offense will not change the controlled substance classification.

Why does it matter? Conviction, even without incarceration, of a controlled substance offense has many collateral consequences beyond the penal consequences. The most obvious is that conviction for a controlled substance offense, including marijuana, is a deportable offense. This means that many law abiding legal residents may be deported, not just those folks that according to Jan Brewer are littering our deserts with headless bodies.

Of course, there are those that are not opposed to the rather harsh measure of deportation of legal residents for minor possession of marijuana. There are other consequences as well. Perhaps most concerning is the impact a controlled substance conviction has on federal student loan eligibility. For those that were lucky enough to avoid student loans and unlikely to need them in the future, a controlled substance conviction can cause all kinds of future problems related to employment.

In short, reclassifying marijuana offenses to a less serious penal status does not address the inequities of marijuana criminalization. If the estimates are correct, there are 83 million Americans potentially at risk. Any law that would threaten to arrest and prosecute over a quarter of country's population for a controlled substance offense is simply unacceptable.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed 4th Amendment search & seizure issues in State v. Jose Manuel Martinez. The case involved the expansion of an investigation of an felony aggravated battery case to the detention of the defendant until a canine unit could be called to the scene for a search of the defendant's car.

The defendant was identified as the perpetrator in an aggravated battery where the alleged victim had suffered serious injuries and coma. The police officers went to the location of the alleged incident where they found a number of individuals including the defendant. The officers smelled marijuana in the residence and asked the occupants to step outside. The officers conducted a walk through search but found no evidence of drugs or weapons.

Despite the apparent lack of any evidence of a crime at the scene, the officers then asked if the defendant had any weapons in his car. The defendant answered that all he had in his car was a crowbar. The officer asked to search the car. Defendant refused the search stating that he would retrieve the crowbar for the officer. The officer then detained the defendant calling in the canine unit. Upon searching the vehicle, the officers found two bags containing cocaine, a digital scale, and rolling papers resulting in charges of trafficking a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The question was whether the expansion of the investigation under these circumstances was reasonable and constitutional under the 4th Amendment. The Court of Appeals found that the expansion was reasonable thereby denying the defendant's motion for suppression of the cocaine and paraphernalia.

The court stated, "An officer may expand the scope of an investigatory stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity is taking or has taken place... If evidence of another crime surfaces during a routine investigatory stop, the officer may proceed in a reasonable manner to investigate." The court was quite generous toward the investigating officers in allowing for the search on these grounds. The Court stated that the defendant's admission that he had a crowbar, but refusal to allow the search of his vehicle, was an indication of other criminal activity sufficient to justify the detention of the defendant until the canine unit arrived, and the search of the defendant's car.

In light of the customary deference to the 4th Amendment and the expansive protections against unlawful search and seizure under New Mexico law, the outcome is somewhat surprising. The case seems like a good candidate for further appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court where there may be a different outcome.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure generally require a warrant grounded in probable cause prior to the search of a citizen's home. It has long been recognized that the broad protections of the 4th Amendment do not apply to those on probation or parole. The issue was addressed most recently in the New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Benavidez.

In Benavidez, the defendant's parole officer visited the defendant's home for a parole visit. The parole officer knocked on the door repeatedly. The defendant would not answer the door. The parole officer saw the curtains in the defendant's bedroom moving. There was also a car in the driveway in which the parole officer had earlier seen the defendant driving. The parole officer called for police backup. Upon arrival, the officers kicked in the door. Upon searching the home, they found the defendant hiding under a bed. They also found meth and paraphernalia in the defendant's bedroom where he was found hiding.

The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. He entered a conditional plea to the charges reserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of the search and seizure. The defendant argued that the search and seizure was illegal and therefore the drugs and the paraphernalia should be suppressed. The court of appeals found the search and seizure to be lawful drawing upon abundant case-law supporting the search and seizure of the parolee's home.

The court indicated that probationers and parolees do not enjoy the same protections under the 4th Amendment as do ordinary citizens. The Court cited the interests in the State in supervising probationers/parolees which dictate a lesser expectation of privacy. In fact, probation and parole agreements require that the probationer/parolee submit to reasonable searches of his or her home. Thus, a search may be conducted for reasonable suspicion rather than the higher standard of probable cause that applies to ordinary citizens.

In this case, the Court found that the refusal of the defendant to open his door for his parole officer provided reasonable suspicion for the search. The refusal itself constituted a violation of the terms of parole which alone was sufficient grounds for the search. Based upon the Court's finding that the search and seizure were legal under the 4th Amendment, the defendant's appeal was denied.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The United States Supreme Court has overruled the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. The petitioner had agreed that he was removable because of the two simple possession convictions but had applied for cancellation of removal. The 5th Circuit ruled that the petitioner's conviction on two simple possession charges constituted an aggravated felony thereby making the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. This ruling had potentially disastrous immigration consequences for thousands of non-citizens charged with petty drug offenses.

The petitioner had served 20 days on his first simple possession and 20 days on the second. The case was brought in Texas state court. The prosecutor had not sought an enhancement though enhancement as a recidivist offender was possible under both Texas and Federal law. The government argued successfully in the 5th Circuit that because the second offense could have been enhanced under the law, the second conviction constituted an aggravated felony.

The Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit. In short, the Court stated that in order to be convicted on an aggravated felony as a recidivist offender, the State must have provided notice of the intent enhance to the defendant so that he could have defended against those charges. The court refused to entertain the government's theoretical possibility of enhancement when in fact there had been no such allegations in the second criminal action. Nor did such a possibility factor into the plea which resulted in only a 10 day sentence under Texas law for simple possession.

This is good news for the petitioner and all non-citizens facing removal for petty drug offenses. However, this does not end the matter. Though the petitioner is now eligible for cancellation of removal, there is no guarantee that cancellation will be granted. If you find yourself or a loved one in this situation, contact an immigration attorney immediately. If you are charged with any kind of crime, especially drug offenses, then make sure you understand all possible immigration consequences of the charges and any offered plea. Even seemingly trivial offenses may have disastrous immigration consequences.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

There was an interesting editorial in the New York Times today about the broken criminal justice system. It was not interesting so much for the recognition of the problem and the fact that there apparently is a bi-partisan effort to study the longstanding problems and to provide solutions. It is far more interesting when viewed in terms of what is happening in New Mexico.

It is well accepted that U.S. prisons are brimming with non-violent offenders, the great majority of whom are drug offenders. It is also well recognized that the costs of housing theses inmates is extremely expensive. In fact, California has put forth a bill to release thousands of prisoners due to the financial strain that it is putting on the state. New Mexico is facing similar pressures.

None of this new and because everyone has heard it time and time again, most have become desensitized to the issues. This is particularly so in New Mexico and apparently acutely so in Albuquerque where the local press seems on a crusade to increase the incarceration rates for everything from first time DWI/DUI to domestic violence to drug offenses to immigration offenses to apparently every crime on the books. There seems to be a law and order movement in Albuquerque and New Mexico generally while much of the rest of the country is seeking less inhumane and oh yes, less expensive solutions to society's woes.

While California is releasing prisoners, Albuquerque Police in particular continue to arrest drivers for DWI/DUI even though they are under the legal limit of .08. They continue to arrest drivers for sleeping intoxicated in their vehicles. They continue to arrest individuals, many of whom are young, for minor possession of marijuana. They continue to arrest people for domestic violence when they come to the scene even when the alleged victim explains there was no domestic violence. And when they bring each of these fundamentally unjust charges, the prosecutors prosecute with little discretion to drop the charges despite the lack of any evidence, or evidence directly contrary to the charges. The prosecutors on the front lines are driven to prosecute by their bosses, who in turn are driven by politics and funding.

And judging by the recent articles and letters to editor, the public wants more it seems. This in turns drives the District Attorneys throughout New Mexico to dig in and push these cases toward trial. After all, District Attorneys are elected officials and they must listen to the masses. These cases have little to do with justice or the protection of society. To the contrary, as prosecutors are forced to push these cases toward trial by their bosses, the media, the new law and order Governor, and ill advised voters, they are pushing New Mexico toward bankruptcy. And the public gleefully cheers them on while at the same time screaming for lower taxes, smaller government, less government intrusion, greater individual rights, and on and on and on.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Possession of a controlled substance, including marijuana, can have serious consequences for student aid. A conviction results in an automatic suspension of eligibility for federal student loans, grants and work assistance.

Suspension of eligibility for student loans, grants and work assistance is automatic for a duration of 1 year for a first time conviction for possession of a controlled substance. A second conviction carries an automatic 2 year suspension. A third conviction results in an indefinite suspension of eligibility.

Because the definition of controlled substance includes marijuana, both under federal and New Mexico law, any college student charged with possession of marijuana needs to carefully consider the consequences of any possible plea offers. Often, the prosecutor or district attorney will offer a plea disposition that ultimately involves a dismissal of the charges. This is very common in minor first time possession of marijuana. However, the prosecutor will often condition the plea and eventual dismissal on an admission of guilt such as in offers of a deferred sentence.

Any offer resulting in ultimate dismissal would typically be a very good option for a criminal defendant. Unfortunately, much like the untended immigration consequences related to seemingly trivial offenses, an admission of guilt to possession of a marijuana, despite a later dismissal, will jeopardize student loan eligibility.

Unfortunately, these harsh federal laws have not caught up with the national trends toward greater leniency in marijuana prosecution. California is moving toward decriminalization. At least one town, Breckenridge, has decriminalized marijuana usage. Medical marijuana legalization is expanding fairly rapidly across the country. Even law enforcement officials across the country are leaning toward leniency in marijuana enforcement. All the while, federal law continues to penalize recipients of student loans and grants for what is a fairly widespread practice on college campuses.

Hopefully, the federal law will catch up with state laws and the realities of widespread marijuana usage throughout the population, including college students. However, until that day comes, any New Mexico college student facing this situation would be well advised to seek the advice of a New Mexico attorney. Going to court without the assistance of counsel believing this to be a minor matter could prove very costly.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Arguments in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder began yesterday before United States Supreme Court. The case addresses the issue severe immigration consequences of removal and deportation of immigrants from the United States for minor possession of marijuana.

The case involved a situation where the defendant was convicted for simple possession of marijuana in 2004. He was sentenced to 20 days in jail. One year later, he was convicted of simple possession of xanax on a no-contest plea. Both were misdemeanors under Texas law. Despite the fact that both convictions were misdemeanors, the prosecutor argued and the Court agreed (both the district court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas) that successive convictions allowed for the defendant to be charged with drug trafficking for the second offense. Drug trafficking convictions are deportable offenses, with very few exceptions.

The Supreme Court will address whether or not the practice of equating two misdemeanor drug offenses to a drug trafficking offense is constitutionally allowed. Several Circuits have already ruled that it is not with the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) continuing the practice.

The Court's ruling will affect thousands of immigrants facing immigration for misdemeanor drug offenses. Under the current state of the law, there is an exception to removal for first time simple possession of marijuana (less than 30 grams). Any subsequent drug offenses no matter how trivial will result in removal and deportation.

The New York Times addressed an individual who is keenly interested in the case's outcome. The article addressed Jerry Lemaine who had been arrested for a small amount of marijuana as a teenager. That case was dismissed. He was caught later with a single marijuana cigarette in 2007. His public defender had advised him to plead guilty and pay the $100 fine. This would make sense in the typical case, but in case of an immigrant, the plea resulted in Jerry being placed in removal. He has spent the next three years in confinement fighting removal to Haiti where he left when he was 3 years old. The court refused to consider his exemplary life where he was working on a nursing degree, helping to care for a brain injured United States citizen sister, and helping his mother single mother who worked two jobs to care for the family and get them out of a dangerous Bronx neighborhood to Long Island.

There are thousands of others currently in removal proceedings for similar charges of minor possession of marijuana. The Court's ruling will affect thousands of immigrants facing immigration for misdemeanor drug offenses. Under the current state of the law, there is an exception to removal for first time simple possession of marijuana (less than 30 grams). Any subsequent drug offenses no matter how trivial will result in removal and deportation.

The immigration enforcement policies have tragic consequences for many immigrants and their families. The policies have broader policy implications that directly impact local law enforcement, prosecutor offices and the Courts. These will be addressed in the second part of this article.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Read the New York Times Article

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed the knock and announce rule in the recent case of State v. Gonzales. It is well established in New Mexico that law enforcement must first knock and announce their presence and wait a reasonable amount of time for a response before entering a residence to execute a search warrant.

The rule avoids the needless destruction of property while recognizing the sanctity of the home and the right to privacy. Failure to comply with this rule constitutes unlawful search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court, in its ruling, reinforced these very important protections afforded by the knock and announce rule.

In State v. Gonzales, the Court addressed a situation where it the facts indicated that the officers had not knocked and had waited only 8 seconds after announcing their presence before bursting through the front door with a battering ram. The Court determined that, under the circumstances, 8 seconds was not a reasonable amount of time to wait following announcement of their presence. The Court also deferred to the District Court's factual finding, based upon the officers' belt tapes, that the police had not knocked despite uncontroverted testimony to the contrary. As a result, the marijuana and cocaine seized from the residence was suppressed.

The Court, in determining the reasonableness of the 8 seconds, contrasted the facts in the case with several prior rulings. There are circumstances where a brief wait following announcement of the officer's presence would be deemed reasonable. The court cited several prior cases involving hotel/motel rooms and other small residences where a brief wait was justified due to the brief amount of time that it would require the resident to get to the door. A delay in these cases would indicate constructive refusal of the warrant.

Likewise, the Court indicated there might be exigent circumstances that would avoid completely the necessity of the knock and announce rule. These cases involved situations where the circumstances indicated announcement posed a danger to law enforcement. An indication that the target was attempting to destroy evidence would also obviate the need for a knock and announce.

The Court was careful to indicate that the fact that evidence might be destroyed was insufficient to override the protections of the knock and announce rule. Therefore, the simple fact that drugs were involved, which could be easily destroyed, was insufficient grounds to avoid the knock and announce rule. There must be some indication under the circumstances that the suspect was in fact attempting to destroy evidence.

State v. Gonzales illustrates the great deference the New Mexico Courts have for the 4th Amendment and the U.S. Constitution, often exceeding federal constitutional protections.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed 4th Amendment search & seizure issues in the case of State v. Winton. The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia following a warrantless stop, detention and search of the defendant by police officers.

The police had obtained a search warrant for 1822 Hammett Street. Upon arriving at the scene, the police found the defendant at 1824 Hammett Street as he was entering 1822 Hammett Street. The defendant was ordered to the ground where the officer held him for about 5 minutes with the officer's boot on his neck. The defendant was then held on the ground for another 10 minutes after the officer removed his boot from his neck as the officers searched the premises of 1822 Hammett.

After conducting a search of the residence, Officer Hengst exited the residence to find the defendant lying on the ground. The officer handcuffed the defendant. At that time, he allegedly observed a knife in defendant's pocket. The defendant allegedly told the officer that he had another knife in his possession. Upon searching the defendant, the officer found a pipe with meth residue.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals took note that defendant was not on the property that was the subject of the search warrant, that the defendant was not named in the search warrant, and that the text of the warrant did not provide the officers with the authority to search and seize the defendant. The Court further recognized the longstanding precedent that a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable under the 4th Amendment placing the burden on the State to prove reasonableness.

The Court stated an exception to the warrant rule allowing officers to detain and search those present on the subject property to prevent flight, preserve evidence, minimize risks to officers, and to facilitate the orderly completion of the search. The Court also recognized that a visitor's mere presence at a home subject to a search warrant is insufficient to justify a search of the visitor. Instead, there must be facts present that would render it reasonable under the circumstances to search the visitor. In short, the officer must have a reasonable belief that the visitor has some connection to the premises or the criminal activity. So far, so good for the Defendant?

Despite the fact that the defendant was not on the subject premises, and therefore not a visitor at all, and the fact that there appeared to be no suspected connection to the property or the suspected crimes therein, the Court found that the search and seizure of the defendant was lawful. The Court found that the search and seizure was lawful because the police had information that the subject of the warrant, not the defendant, was not afraid to shoot someone. Thus, the search and seizure of defendant was necessary for officer safety despite the lack of connection to the property or the crimes under investigation via the warrant or the threat to officer safety expressed in the warrant.

Thus, visitors cannot be searched and seized simply because of their presence on premises subject to a search warrant. However, a visitor can be detained, held down by a boot on his her neck, and subsequently searched if the police can make any suggestion of officer safety issues. This is apparently the case even where the visitor is not on the property, has no connection to the property or the crime, and was not the individual named in the warrant or the individual feared to pose threats to officer safety.

In short, under State v. Winton, a visitor or apparently anyone in close proximity to the premises can be searched and seized without any real justification as long as the officer expresses a fear for officer safety, which should not be hard for the imaginative officer. This ruling makes absolutely no sense in light of the authority recognized by the Court. The ruling effectively negates the protection of visitors against unlawful search and seizure set forth in prior New Mexico cases. Hopefully, the case will move on to the New Mexico Supreme Court where, if the 4th Amendment has any meaning In New Mexico, it should be reversed.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

New Mexico law does not allow law enforcement to take a blood draw without the suspect's consent. However, a blood draw may be taken upon the issuance of lawful search warrant. Likewise, in the absence of a search warrant, a suspect may not be forced to submit to a blood draw.

Blood draws are common in controlled substance cases. They also are used in DWI/DUI cases. However, it is pretty rare that an officer would order a blood draw in a DWI/DUI case. In the recent case of State v. Bullcoming, a blood draw was taken from the defendant under search warrant following the defendant's refusal to take the breath alcohol test and his refusal to voluntarily submit to a blood draw.

The Bullcoming case has importance for a number of reasons, most notably the admissibility of the blood draw report. Though the issue of the search warrant itself was mentioned only in setting forth the facts of the case, almost in passing, the issue is certainly not a trivial one. The defendant in Bullcoming was charged with aggravated felony DWI/DUI. The aggravated portion arose from the fact that the defendant was involved in an accident , and then promptly fled the scene. Once the officer tracked him down, the defendant refused the blood alcohol test, also grounds for aggravated DWI/DUI.

No doubt the result of the defendant's antics, the officer in Bullcoming took the rare step of obtaining a search warrant to obtain the blood draw. Unfortunately for the defendant, his blood alcohol level was .21, almost three times the legal limit, again an aggravating factor.

The more common response of law enforcement to a suspect's refusal to submit to the breath alcohol test is to simply note the refusal and charge the DWI/DUI as aggravated. Aggravated DWI/DUI carries significantly greater penalties than simple DWI/DUI. Thus the refusal can have severe consequences.

No matter how the blood draw is taken, whether voluntarily or by warrant, the suspect has the right to an independent test. In a situation like Bullcoming where the blood alcohol level comes in so high, the independent blood draw may serve only to bolster the results. In closer cases, the suspect would do well to obtain an independent blood draw. The independent test is free to the suspect so long as he or she did not refuse the blood alcohol test. So there is no good reason to waive this right in close cases.

The police officer should inform a suspect of the right to independent testing. If an independent blood test is merited, then the suspect should insist on the test even if the officer has not advised him or her of this right. In fact, the suspect should be quite vocal if the officer is resistant to the request for an independent blood test. As seen in the recent case of State v. Duarte, the presumptions are with the officer so that if he or she says he advised the suspect, it is taken as gospel.

In short, you cannot be forced to take a blood test without a warrant. If you are forced by warrant to take a blood test, you would be well advised in cases close to .08 (simple DWI/DUI) or .16 (aggravated DWI/DUI) to demand an independent blood test. However, in cases with very high levels, or cases that come in just below the aggravated .16 or simple .08, you may be very disappointed with your independent testing.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Two recent cases from New Mexico's Supreme Court apply the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts to DWI/DUI blood draws, and chemical testing in controlled substance cases.

The first case of State v. Bullcoming involved a felony aggravated DWI/DUI conviction. The State introduced a blood alcohol test (blood draw) that was taken from the defendant under a search warrant issued following his refusal of the breath alcohol test. The court made some interesting and somewhat contradictory findings regarding the admissibility of the report and the defendant's 6th Amendment right of confrontation of witnesses.

First, in light of the Melendez-Diaz decision, the Court reversed its prior position in State v. Dedman that had ruled that forensic tests were public records and therefore not subject to 6th Amendment confrontation protections set forth in the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington. Dedman found that these reports were non-testimonial in nature since they were public records. Under Crawford, only testimonial evidence prepared in anticipation of trial is subject to 6th Amendment protection.

Melendez-Diaz ruled that these reports are "quite plainly affidavits" and that "there [was] little doubt that [they] fall within the 'core class of testimonial statements,'" governed by the Confrontation Clause and Crawford. To bring New Mexico law in line with the United States Supreme Court, the Court in Bullcoming ruled that these reports are testimonial, they do not fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and therefore they are subject to cross examination.

Then remarkably, the Court found that the analyst preparing the report was a "mere scrivener" simply transcribing the results from the gas chromatograph. As such, the analyst/scrivener was unnecessary in court to meet the demands of Melendez-Diaz, Crawford and the 6th Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses. Instead, the Court allowed for the presence in court of any other qualified analyst to testify to the results of the testing analyst/scrivener.

It is unclear where this case will go from here. However, it seems that the second part of the ruling renders the first part impotent. The second part of the holding ignores much of the analysis in Melendez-Diaz which makes clear that these types of reports are prepared in anticipation of trial. The court in Melendez-Diaz addressed the pressures on analysts to provide results helpful to the prosecution. The court in Bullcoming ignores this possibility leaving the analyst/scrivener free of cross examination on possible errors in the testing instrument or processes, or even the outright fabrication of the results contemplated in Melendez-Diaz.

Bullcoming takes a step in the right direction. At least, blood draw results will no longer simply be admitted as gospel with no testimony from a representative from the state lab. However, the right to confrontation and cross examination has taken a blow when the testing analyst can escape cross examination on his or her experience, expertise, testing procedures, background, history, biases, and prior work product to name only a few possible sources impacting credibility.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com