Katz test in New Mexico

2011As this Court noted in Granville, since the decision in Greenwood , "other courts began to utilize the Katz test in relation to garbage searches." Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 20 , 140 N.M. 345 , 142 P.3d 933 .

2011As this Court noted in Granville, since the decision in Greenwood , "other courts began to utilize the Katz test in relation to garbage searches." Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 20 , 140 N.M. 345 , 142 P.3d 933 .

2014While acknowledging the difficulty of applying the Katz test to searches of “areas such as telephone booths, automobiles, or even the curtilage,” Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 , the law at a minimum recognizes that the expectation of privacy in the interior of the home is reasonable when the police “obtain}] by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, ... at least where ... the technology in question is not in general public use.” Id. (internal quotation m

2014While acknowledging the difficulty of applying the Katz test to searches of “areas such as telephone booths, automobiles, or even the curtilage,” Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 , the law at a minimum recognizes that the expectation of privacy in the interior of the home is reasonable when the police “obtain}] by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, ... at least where ... the technology in question is not in general public use.” Id. (internal quotation m

2015See generally State v. Rogers, 1983-NMCA-115 , 100 N.M. 517 , 673 P.2d 142 ; State v. Bigler, 1983-NMCA-114 , 100 N.M. 515 , 673 P.2d 140 .

2015See generally State v. Rogers, 1983-NMCA-115 , 100 N.M. 517 , 673 P.2d 142 ; State v. Bigler, 1983-NMCA-114 , 100 N.M. 515 , 673 P.2d 140 .

2015To evaluate whether a search and seizure violates the protections of the New Mexico Constitution, courts judge “the facts of each case by balancing the degree of intrusion into an individual’s privacy against the interest of the government in promoting crime prevention and detection.” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {101} I would hold that under the second prong in the Katz test, an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance is coextensive with the scope of his or her reasonable exp

2015To evaluate whether a search and seizure violates the protections of the New Mexico Constitution, courts judge “the facts of each case by balancing the degree of intrusion into an individual’s privacy against the interest of the government in promoting crime prevention and detection.” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {101} I would hold that under the second prong in the Katz test, an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance is coextensive with the scope of his or her reasonable exp

2015Under the second prong of the Katz test, the Court reasoned that “[t]he Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares.” Id. at 213 .

2015Under the second prong of the Katz test, the Court reasoned that “[t]he Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares.” Id. at 213 .

2011As this Court noted in Granville, since the decision in Greenwood , "other courts began to utilize the Katz test in relation to garbage searches." Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 20 , 140 N.M. 345 , 142 P.3d 933 .

2011As this Court noted in Granville, since the decision in Greenwood , "other courts began to utilize the Katz test in relation to garbage searches." Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 20 , 140 N.M. 345 , 142 P.3d 933 .

2011In addition, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Hempele rejected the two-prong Katz test and concluded that the New Jersey Constitution "requires only that an expectation of privacy be reasonable." Hempele, 576 A.2d at 802 . {¶ 10} We agree with the court in Hempele and conclude that under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, the requisite inquiry is whether the expectation of privacy in a particular instance is reasonable; therefore, we need not consider whether Defendant had an actual expectation of privacy in the garbage.

2011In addition, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Hempele rejected the two-prong Katz test and concluded that the New Jersey Constitution "requires only that an expectation of privacy be reasonable." Hempele, 576 A.2d at 802 . {¶ 10} We agree with the court in Hempele and conclude that under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, the requisite inquiry is whether the expectation of privacy in a particular instance is reasonable; therefore, we need not consider whether Defendant had an actual expectation of privacy in the garbage.

2006The Greenwood Court acknowledged the respondents’ assertions that they had exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy. 486 U.S. at 39 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 .

2006The Greenwood Court acknowledged the respondents’ assertions that they had exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy. 486 U.S. at 39 , 108 S.Ct. 1625 .

2015To evaluate whether a search and seizure violates the protections of 61 1 the New Mexico Constitution, courts judge “the facts of each case by balancing the 2 degree of intrusion into an individual’s privacy against the interest of the government 3 in promoting crime prevention and detection.” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , 4 ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 {101} I would hold that under the second prong in the Katz test, an individual’s 6 reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance is coextensive with the 7 scope of his or h

2015To evaluate whether a search and seizure violates the protections of 61 1 the New Mexico Constitution, courts judge “the facts of each case by balancing the 2 degree of intrusion into an individual’s privacy against the interest of the government 3 in promoting crime prevention and detection.” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , 4 ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 {101} I would hold that under the second prong in the Katz test, an individual’s 6 reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance is coextensive with the 7 scope of his or h

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .

1991Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965) (exclusionary rule); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966) (limiting retroactivity of Escobedo and Miranda rights); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1030 , 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (limiting the Katz doctrine to prospective application)." 775 S.W.2d at 663 .