SANTA FE – Magistrate and metropolitan courts can issue a search warrant in a criminal prosecution after proceedings in the case have started in a district court, New Mexico’s highest court ruled today.
“Even though an inferior court may issue a search warrant after formal criminal proceedings are initiated in the district court, we additionally hold that a district court may quash the warrant pursuant to its inherent power to ensure the orderly and efficient administration of those proceedings,” the Court wrote in a unanimous opinion by Justice Michael E. Vigil. “The district court retains broad power to control the cases on its docket.”
Nothing in current rules of procedure preclude magistrate and metropolitan courts from issuing search warrants after a criminal case is opened in district court, the justices explained. “Nor do we see any pragmatic reason to limit our inferior courts’ authority to issue warrants after the initiation of formal criminal proceedings in the district court,” the Court reasoned.
“A criminal investigation may continue after a defendant has been formally charged with a crime,” the Court wrote. “Permitting investigators to apply to any court with authority to issue a warrant, regardless of the initiation of any related criminal prosecution, encourages our strong preference that searches be conducted pursuant to a search warrant and promotes the timely collection of evidence.”
The Court directed its rules committees to revise the rules of procedure for search warrants by district, magistrate and metropolitan courts.
“The goal of these revisions should be to encourage full disclosure of prior court actions when obtaining a search warrant from an inferior court after the commencement of a formal criminal prosecution in the district court,” the Court stated.
Today’s decision came in the pending criminal prosecution of an Albuquerque man, Gerald Chavez, on felony and misdemeanor charges for an exchange of gunfire during a high speed chase with another car. After crashing his truck, Chavez fled on foot. He was indicted on charges of aggravated drunken driving, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, and leaving the scene of an accident. The indictment initiated criminal proceedings in district court.
A month after the case commenced, a police investigator obtained a search warrant from the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court for fingerprints and an oral swab from Chavez. The affidavit for the warrant identified Chavez as a “suspect” and did not disclose that he had been indicted. Chavez filed a motion in district court to invalidate the warrant, arguing that the metropolitan court lacked jurisdiction in the matter once he was indicted.
A week before a district court hearing on the motion to quash the warrant, the police investigator obtained a second warrant for the same evidence from a different metropolitan court judge. The police affidavit for the second warrant omitted that Chavez had been indicted, that a previous warrant for the evidence had been issued and that a hearing on the warrant was pending in district court.
The district court quashed both warrants and suppressed the evidence. The court explained that the general practice after an indictment was for the prosecution to file a motion seeking a defendant’s fingerprints and an oral swab. The prosecution appealed the court’s ruling and declined the judge’s invitation to bring a motion to obtain the evidence. After the state Court of Appeals reversed the district court, Chavez asked the Supreme Court to review the dispute over the warrants.
The Supreme Court concluded that the “district court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the warrants under the circumstances presented.” The district court suppressed the evidence obtained by the search warrant but left open the possibility for prosecutors to seek the evidence again by filing a motion.
The Court noted that obtaining evidence by warrant instead of by motion potentially delayed the district court’s schedule for moving the case forward to trial. Additionally, the justices explained that the “omissions in the affidavits misled the metro court judges” and by seeking the second warrant “the State’s conduct thus suggests an attempt to subvert the district court’s authority to rule on the motion to quash.”
The justices returned the criminal case to the district court for further proceedings. The criminal prosecution has been on hold while the search warrant dispute was on appeal.
###
To read the decision in State v. Chavez, No. S-1-SC-40017, please visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website using the following link:
