warrant requirement in New Mexico

2022See, e.g., Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 39, 44 (rejecting the federal, exigency-based automobile exception to the warrant requirement in favor of greater protections under Article II, Section 10); Cardenas- Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 2, 5 (holding that extended detention of a defendant at border checkpoint was unlawful under Article II, Section 10 and suppressing evidence seized thereby).

2022See, e.g., Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 39, 44 (rejecting the federal, exigency-based automobile 13 exception to the warrant requirement in favor of greater protections under Article II, Section 10); Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 2, 5 (holding that extended detention of a defendant at border checkpoint was unlawful under Article II, Section 10 and suppressing evidence seized thereby).

2025See State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 29 , 357 P.3d 958 (“In New Mexico, a warrantless search is presumed unreasonable unless the search fits within a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement.”). “[T]he State bears the burden of proving reasonableness.” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023The appellate court reviews “factual matters with deference to the district court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them, and it reviews the district court’s application of the law de novo.” State v. Almanzar, 2014- NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183 . {5} A warrantless search incident to legal arrest is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement, and is “considered reasonable because of the practical need to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence or obtaining access to weapons or instruments of escape, without any requirement of specific probable cause to belie

2024Among the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, are “exigent circumstances, searches incident to arrest, inventory searches, [and] consent . . . .” State v. Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063, ¶ 6 , 141 N.M. 582 , 158 P.3d 1025 .

2024Among the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, are “exigent circumstances, searches incident to arrest, inventory searches, [and] consent . . . .” State v. Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063, ¶ 6 , 141 N.M. 582 , 158 P.3d 1025 .

2017However, 18 “New Mexico has rejected this bright line exception to the warrant requirement and 19 requires ‘a particularized showing of exigent circumstances’ in order to conduct a 6 1 warrantless search of an automobile and its contents.” Id. (quoting State v. Gomez, 2 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 39 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ). 3 {12} “Absent exigent circumstances or some other exception to the warrant 4 requirement, an officer may not search an automobile without a warrant.” Id. ¶ 17; see 5 also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 61 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (stating that 6 “[a]mong the recognized

2017However, 18 “New Mexico has rejected this bright line exception to the warrant requirement and 19 requires ‘a particularized showing of exigent circumstances’ in order to conduct a 6 1 warrantless search of an automobile and its contents.” Id. (quoting State v. Gomez, 2 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 39 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ). 3 {12} “Absent exigent circumstances or some other exception to the warrant 4 requirement, an officer may not search an automobile without a warrant.” Id. ¶ 17; see 5 also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 61 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (stating that 6 “[a]mong the recognized

2010A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable “unless it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Corneau, 109 N.M. 81, 89 , 781 P.2d 1159, 1167 (Ct.App.1989).

2010A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable “unless it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Corneau, 109 N.M. 81, 89 , 781 P.2d 1159, 1167 (Ct.App.1989).

2017See State v. 16 Valdez, 1990-NMCA-134 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 438 , 806 P.2d 578 (indicating that the 17 United States Supreme Court recognized the “protective sweep rule” as an exception 18 to the warrant requirement and stating that the rule is recognized in New Mexico); see 19 also State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC-026 , ¶¶ 33, 36-38, 129 N.M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 19 1 (upholding a warrantless entry into and search of the defendant’s home as part of a 2 protective sweep).

2017See State v. 16 Valdez, 1990-NMCA-134 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 438 , 806 P.2d 578 (indicating that the 17 United States Supreme Court recognized the “protective sweep rule” as an exception 18 to the warrant requirement and stating that the rule is recognized in New Mexico); see 19 also State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC-026 , ¶¶ 33, 36-38, 129 N.M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 19 1 (upholding a warrantless entry into and search of the defendant’s home as part of a 2 protective sweep).

2009II, Section 10 of the New 7 Mexico Constitution because police did not have a warrant and no exception applies. 8 {13} The State has the burden of showing that a particular seizure was reasonable. 9 State v. Vasquez, 112 N.M. 363, 366 , 815 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1991).

2009II, Section 10 of the New 7 Mexico Constitution because police did not have a warrant and no exception applies. 8 {13} The State has the burden of showing that a particular seizure was reasonable. 9 State v. Vasquez, 112 N.M. 363, 366 , 815 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1991).

2017Therefore, a warrantless entry and search of a home are “presumptively unreasonable, subject only to a few specific, narrowly defined exceptions.” Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 23 ; Monteleone, 2005-NMCA-129, ¶ 10 (“[A]bsent an exception to the warrant requirement, the officers’ entry into [the d]efendant’s apartment was a violation of his constitutional rights under both the United States and New Mexico Constitutions.”); State v. Diaz, 1996-NMCA-104 , ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 384 , 925 P.2d 4 (“A search and seizure conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless it is shown to fall within one of the excepti

2016Thus, “[w]arrantless searches and seizures inside a home are 12 presumptively unreasonable, subject only to a few specific, narrowly defined 13 exceptions.” Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 23 ; see also State v. Trudelle, 2007-NMCA- 14 066, ¶ 14, 142 N.M. 18 , 162 P.3d 173 (“A warrantless search is presumptively 15 unreasonable, unless it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement.” (internal 16 quotation marks and citation omitted)). 17 {14} The exception to the warrant requirement at issue in the present case is the 18 emergency assistance doctrine.

2017See generally State v. Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072 , 7 ¶¶ 3-4, 94 N.M. 500 , 612 P.2d 1311 (identifying inventory searches as an exception 8 to warrant requirements and commenting upon the widespread recognition of the 9 doctrine); State v. Nysus, 2001-NMCA-102, ¶ 26 , 131 N.M. 338 , 35 P.3d 993 10 (“Inventory searches are well established as an exception to the warrant requirement 11 of the Fourth Amendment.”).

2017See generally State v. Ruffino, 1980-NMSC-072 , 7 ¶¶ 3-4, 94 N.M. 500 , 612 P.2d 1311 (identifying inventory searches as an exception 8 to warrant requirements and commenting upon the widespread recognition of the 9 doctrine); State v. Nysus, 2001-NMCA-102, ¶ 26 , 131 N.M. 338 , 35 P.3d 993 10 (“Inventory searches are well established as an exception to the warrant requirement 11 of the Fourth Amendment.”).

2018See 14 generally State v. Saiz, 2008-NMSC-048, ¶ 17 , 144 N.M. 663 , 191 P.3d 521 15 (observing that the well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement for 16 searches incident to a custodial arrest permits “the search of an arrestee’s person 17 and any other area within the arrestee’s access” (emphasis added)), abrogated on 18 other grounds by State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025 , ¶ 36 n.1, 146 N.M. 357 , 210 19 P.3d 783 . 20 {10} We next consider whether the inevitable discovery doctrine—the alternative 21 basis on which the district court relied to deny Defendant’s motion to suppress— 22

2016Not persuaded by Child’s arguments, we 2 affirm the judgment and sentence. 3 {2} Child challenged whether reasonable grounds existed to suspect that a search 4 of his vehicle would uncover evidence of a violation of law or school rules [DS 6], 5 and whether the search of his vehicle was reasonably related in scope under the 6 circumstances which justified the search in the first place. [DS 6] The calendar notice 7 proposed to conclude that Child consented to the search on the basis that when the 8 principal asked Child if he would mind opening the door to the vehicle, Child replied 9 no and un

2006See State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985) (observing that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement).

2006See State v. Mann, 103 N.M. 660, 664 , 712 P.2d 6, 10 (Ct.App.1985) (observing that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement).

2022“In rejecting the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement, [our Supreme] Court dismissed the notion that an individual lowers his expectation of privacy when he enters an automobile, and elected instead to provide motorists with a ‘layer of protection’ from unreasonable searches and seizures that is unavailable at the federal level.” Id.

2022In Gomez, our Supreme Court recognized that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, like the inventory search exception at issue here, “was based, in part, on the notion that a motorist has a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile.” Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 15 .

2020“The State bears the burden of proving that a warrantless search or seizure is reasonable . . . [by] prov[ing] that it fits into an exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019As we have explained above, “[w]arrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable . . . [and t]he [s]tate bears the burden of proving . . . reasonable[ness].” Bond, 2011-NMCA-036, ¶ 11 (citation omitted). “[T]o prove that a warrantless [search or] seizure is reasonable, the [s]tate must prove that it fits into an exception to the warrant requirement.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {19} “The Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless search of an automobile and of closed containers found within an automobile when there is probable cause to believe that contraband is containe

2023The appellate court reviews “factual matters with deference to the district court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them, and it reviews the district court’s application of the law de novo.” State v. Almanzar, 2014- NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183 . {5} A warrantless search incident to legal arrest is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement, and is “considered reasonable because of the practical need to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence or obtaining access to weapons or instruments of escape, without any requirement of specific probable cause to belie

2023The appellate court reviews “factual matters with deference to the district court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them, and it reviews the district court’s application of the law de novo.” State v. Almanzar, 2014- NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183 . {5} A warrantless search incident to legal arrest is a well-established exception to the warrant requirement, and is “considered reasonable because of the practical need to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence or obtaining access to weapons or instruments of escape, without any requirement of specific probable cause to belie

2017Defendant also argued that none of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applied: Sergeant Foreman did not arrest Defendant, so the search cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest; there existed no exigencies requiring Sergeant Foreman to search the vehicle in order to preserve a life or prevent serious damage to property; Defendant did not consent to the search; and nothing in plain view in the vehicle gave rise to Sergeant Foreman's perceived need to search the vehicle. {6} In response to the motion, the State argued that the warrantless search of Defendant's

2017Defendant also argued that none of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applied: Sergeant Foreman did not arrest Defendant, so the search cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest; there existed no exigencies requiring Sergeant Foreman to search the vehicle in order to preserve a life or prevent serious damage to property; Defendant did not consent to the search; and nothing in plain view in the vehicle gave rise to Sergeant Foreman's perceived need to search the vehicle. {6} In response to the motion, the State argued that the warrantless search of Defendant's

2025The Probable Cause Standard 2 {11} When the State claims that a warrantless seizure of an item was justified under 3 the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, the State bears the burden of 4 establishing that it was immediately apparent to the law enforcement officer before 5 seizing the item that its possession or use was unlawful, “such that the officer had 6 probable cause to believe that the article seized was evidence of a crime.” Ochoa, 7 2004-NMSC-023, ¶ 9 .

2017“However, if following a lawful stop on a 10 roadway, an item in an automobile is in plain view and the officer has probable cause 11 to believe the item is evidence of a crime, the officer may seize the item.” Bomboy, 12 2008-NMSC-029, ¶ 17 ; see also State v. Ochoa, 2004-NMSC-023, ¶ 9 , 135 N.M. 781 , 13 93 P.3d 1286 (“Under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement, items may 14 be seized without a warrant if the police officer was lawfully positioned when the 15 evidence was observed, and the incriminating nature of the evidence was immediately 16 apparent, such that the officer

2025See Campos v. State, 1994-NMSC- 012, ¶¶ 13-14, 117 N.M. 155 , 870 P.2d 117 (stating that New Mexico courts “strongly favor the warrant requirement” and an arrest without a warrant is valid only if supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances).

2025See Campos v. State, 1994-NMSC- 012, ¶¶ 13-14, 117 N.M. 155 , 870 P.2d 117 (stating that New Mexico courts “strongly favor the warrant requirement” and an arrest without a warrant is valid only if supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances).

2025See State v. Flores, 2008- NMCA-074, ¶ 12, 144 N.M. 217 , 185 P.3d 1067 (“One of the settled exceptions to the warrant requirement is consent.”). {15} “The voluntariness of consent is a factual question in which the trial court must weigh the evidence and decide if it is sufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that the consent was voluntary.” State v. Davis, 2013-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 10, 13 , 304 P.3d 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025See State v. Flores, 2008- NMCA-074, ¶ 12, 144 N.M. 217 , 185 P.3d 1067 (“One of the settled exceptions to the warrant requirement is consent.”). {15} “The voluntariness of consent is a factual question in which the trial court must weigh the evidence and decide if it is sufficient to clearly and convincingly establish that the consent was voluntary.” State v. Davis, 2013-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 10, 13 , 304 P.3d 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022Id. ¶ 22; Ochoa, 2009-NMCA-002, ¶ 23 . {20} We have similar misgivings about the scope of the automobile inventory exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.

2022Id. ¶ 22; Ochoa, 2009-NMCA-002, ¶ 23 . {20} We have similar misgivings about the scope of the automobile inventory exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.

2016See State v. Leticia T., 2014-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 , 329 P.3d 636 (“A warrantless entry into a vehicle under the exigent circumstances exception requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances.”); State v. Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶¶ 26, 31 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (recognizing that warrants are favored and a warrant is required to enter the vehicle unless a recognized exception to the warrant requirement can be proven); State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 29 , 138 N.M. 1 , 116 P.3d 72 (“However, even with an object in plain view, an officer may not enter the car and seize the object, without eit

2016See State v. Leticia T., 2014-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 , 329 P.3d 636 (“A warrantless entry into a vehicle under the exigent circumstances exception requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances.”); State v. Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶¶ 26, 31 , 144 N.M. 371 , 188 P.3d 95 (recognizing that warrants are favored and a warrant is required to enter the vehicle unless a recognized exception to the warrant requirement can be proven); State v. Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 29 , 138 N.M. 1 , 116 P.3d 72 (“However, even with an object in plain view, an officer may not enter the car and seize the object, without eit

2007See Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 29 , 138 N.M. 1 , 116 P.3d 72 ; Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 35, 39 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ; Jones, 2002-NMCA-019, ¶¶ 12, 15 , 131 N.M. 586 , 40 P.3d 1030 ; see also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014 , *900 ¶ 61, 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (stating that "[a]mong the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement are exigent circumstances, consent, searches incident to arrest, plain view, inventory searches, open field, and hot pursuit"). {5} The State does not contend that exigent circumstances or any other exception to the warrant requirement is applicable.

2007Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 29 , 138 N.M. 1 , 116 P.3d 72 ; see also Jones, 2002-NMCA-019, ¶¶ 12-15 , 131 N.M. 586 , 40 P.3d 1030 (holding that a vehicle is a constitutionally protected area which is protected from a warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view from outside the vehicle absent exigent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement).

2017Inventory Searches {11} “[I]nventory searches are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 (1987).

1993Moreover, inventory searches “are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371 , 107 S.Ct. 738, 741 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); accord Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 643 , 103 S.Ct. 2605, 2608 , 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983).

2020DISCUSSION {5} “A search and seizure conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless it is shown to fall within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Diaz, 1996-NMCA-104 , ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 384 , 925 P.2d 4 .

2020DISCUSSION {5} “A search and seizure conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless it is shown to fall within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Diaz, 1996-NMCA-104 , ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 384 , 925 P.2d 4 .

2012Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Williams, 2011-NMSC-026, ¶ 10 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {8} Under the New Mexico Constitution, “[a] search incident to a lawful arrest may fall under an exception to the warrant requirement ... if the State meets its burden of proving that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control.” State v. Arredon

2012Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Williams, 2011-NMSC-026, ¶ 10 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {8} Under the New Mexico Constitution, “[a] search incident to a lawful arrest may fall under an exception to the warrant requirement ... if the State meets its burden of proving that the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control.” State v. Arredon

2025See State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 29 , 357 P.3d 958 (“In New Mexico, a warrantless search is presumed unreasonable unless the search fits within a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement.”). “[T]he State bears the burden of proving reasonableness.” Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023Search Incident to Arrest 4 {8} Here, the State contends that the search of Defendant’s purse was reasonable 5 pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, 6 arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the State to produce 7 particularized “evidence of the presence of a weapon, instrument of escape or 8 destructible evidence.” 9 {9} We recognize that “[o]ne of the most firmly established exceptions to the 10 warrant requirement is the right on the part of the government . . . to search the 11 person of the accused when legally arrested.” State v. Paa

2022State v. Crane, 2014-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 , 329 P.3d 689 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {18} “[U]nless there is an exception to the warrant requirement, the government must get a warrant before exceeding the scope of a private search.” State v. Rivera, 2010- NMSC-046, ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 659 , 241 P.3d 1099 .

2022State v. Crane, 2014-NMSC-026, ¶ 16 , 329 P.3d 689 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {18} “[U]nless there is an exception to the warrant requirement, the government must get a warrant before exceeding the scope of a private search.” State v. Rivera, 2010- NMSC-046, ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 659 , 241 P.3d 1099 .

2017However, 18 “New Mexico has rejected this bright line exception to the warrant requirement and 19 requires ‘a particularized showing of exigent circumstances’ in order to conduct a 6 1 warrantless search of an automobile and its contents.” Id. (quoting State v. Gomez, 2 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 39 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ). 3 {12} “Absent exigent circumstances or some other exception to the warrant 4 requirement, an officer may not search an automobile without a warrant.” Id. ¶ 17; see 5 also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 61 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (stating that 6 “[a]mong the recognized

2017However, 18 “New Mexico has rejected this bright line exception to the warrant requirement and 19 requires ‘a particularized showing of exigent circumstances’ in order to conduct a 6 1 warrantless search of an automobile and its contents.” Id. (quoting State v. Gomez, 2 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 39 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 ). 3 {12} “Absent exigent circumstances or some other exception to the warrant 4 requirement, an officer may not search an automobile without a warrant.” Id. ¶ 17; see 5 also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 61 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (stating that 6 “[a]mong the recognized