SANTA FE – The state Supreme Court ruled today that a confidential informant’s first-hand observations related to potential drug trafficking met the requirements for Alamogordo police to obtain a search warrant from a court.
The Court’s split decision clarified the legal standard for determining whether information from a confidential informant (CI) provides the necessary probable cause for a search warrant under New Mexico’s Constitution.
The Court’s majority affirmed a ruling by the state Court of Appeals that would allow prosecutors to use drug-related evidence seized during a search of the home of an Alamogordo woman, Michelle Perea. The Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s exclusion of the seized evidence. The district court determined that a police affidavit lacked sufficient facts to support a magistrate court’s probable cause finding for issuing the search warrant. Prosecutors appealed. Perea faces two drug-related charges and her trial has been on hold pending the outcome of the appeal.
The police affidavit relied on information from a confidential informant, who told police he had seen methamphetamine at the woman’s home and that she kept a supply of narcotics at all times.
When a confidential informant’s hearsay evidence is used to establish probable cause for a warrant, the law requires a two-prong showing that the informant is credible and that there is a substantial basis for the informant’s knowledge.
“While the CI’s first-hand observations were sufficient here, we clarify that neither our affirmance nor the cases cited by the Court of Appeals in this context should be read to support that such observations always or automatically satisfy the basis-of-knowledge prong,” the Court’s majority wrote in an opinion by Justice C. Shannon Bacon.
In Perea’s case, the justices explained, the police affidavit provided enough detail to show the reliability of the CI’s knowledge.
“In combination with the CI’s credibility, the affidavit identified that the CI personally observed an illegal substance, in quantities sufficient to indicate illegal activity, and therefore provided sufficient factual detail from which the magistrate court could reasonably infer ‘probable cause to believe that a search [would] uncover evidence of wrongdoing,’” the majority wrote.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Michael E. Vigil disagreed that the affidavit provided the factual support for a finding of probable cause for drug trafficking.
“The majority overlooks that the affidavit merely sets forth a conclusion or opinion that the quantity of methamphetamine the CI saw is “consistent with trafficking.” More than this is constitutionally required,” Justice Vigil wrote, adding that the affidavit was “totally devoid of any facts whatsoever” to back up the CI’s claim.
“The CI’s conclusion or opinion is not supported by stating any of the conditions under which the CI saw methamphetamine, the circumstances in which the methamphetamine was seen, the amount of the methamphetamine, how the methamphetamine was packaged, if at all, whether there was any paraphernalia used in the packaging and sale of methamphetamine, what the CI saw to say that the methamphetamine was ‘being handled’ by Petitioner, or any other details,” Justice Vigil explained.
###
To read the decision in State v. Perea, No. S-1-SC-39309, please visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website using the following link:
https://nmonesource.com/nmos/
