This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8

v. NO. 30,478 9 SHARON EARNEST, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 12 Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 Trace L. Rabern 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellee 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION 22CASTILLO, Chief Judge. 1 The State appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Sharon Earnest’s 2 motion to suppress evidence. On March 18, 2011, this Court filed a third calendar 3 notice proposing reversal on the summary cal endar. On June 24, 2011, Defendant 4 filed a memorandum in opposition that we have given due consideration. For the 5 reasons set forth below and in our calendar notices, we reverse the district court. 6 INTRODUCTION 7 In the district court, Defendant m oved to suppress evidence of possession of 8 drugs and drug paraphernalia, alleging that the evidence was the fruit of an earlier 9 search warrant that she asserts was invalid . [RP 79-81] Defendant’s arguments fall 10 into two categories: those related to the veracity of the informants relied on in the 11 affidavit for the search warrant and those re lated to procedural or technical defects in 12 the warrant. In the present circumstances, as background for our analysis of both 13 issues, 14 [w]e are mindful of the admonitions that a reviewing court should not 15 impose technical requirements on an affidavit nor insist on elaborate 16 specificity, but instead we should a pply a common-sense reading of the 17 affidavit, while bearing in mind th at such affidavits are generally 18 prepared by police officers who are not lawyers. 19 In re Shon Daniel K. , 1998-NMCA-069, ¶ 8, 125 N.M. 219, 959 P.2d 553, limited on 20 other grounds by State v. Williamson , 2009-NMSC-039, ¶ 29, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 21376. 1 VERACITY OF INFORMANTS 2 Defendant argues that the affidavit for the search warrant relied on 3 “unconfirmed hearsay allegations provide d by telephoning informants,” [MIO3 14] 4 that this Court’s reliance on State v. Dietrich , 2009-NMCA-031, 145 N.M. 733, 204 5 P.3d 748, is misplaced, [MIO3 17] that the requisite corroboration must be 6 accomplished by law enforcement investigation—not by colluding tipsters 7 corroborating each other, [MIO3 18] and that this Court did not conduct a meaningful 8 analysis of the affidavit under Williamson , 2009-NMSC-039. 9 We first observe that the affidavit states that the affiant, Chief of Police Jennifer 10 Dreiling, spoke to Brandi Earnest by telephone, but it doe s not specify whether she 11 spoke to the other informant, Billy McGi nnis, by telephone or inperson. [RP 123-24] 12 We also fail to see any indication that Brandi Earnest and McGinnis were necessarily 13 “colluding tipsters.” The affidavit shows only that Officer Dreiling received similar 14 information from both informants. The distri ct court’s order of suppression speculates 15 only that “[t]hese informants mayhave ‘bad blood’ with defendant” (emphasis 16 added), but Defendant does not cite any support in the record for such a conclusion. 17 [RP 128] 18 An affidavit for a search warrant “must set forth both: (1) a substantial basis 19for believing the informant; and (2) a substantial basis for concluding the informant 1 gathered the information of illegal activity in a reliable fashion.” State v. Cordova, 2 109 N.M. 211, 214, 784 P.2d 30, 33 (1989). “[ T]hese requirements are formulations 3 of the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ tests” of the so-called Aguilar-Spinellitwo4 prong approach to a determination of proba ble cause for a search warrant, which New 5 Mexico continues to follow. Cordova , 119 N.M. at 214, 784 P.2d at 33. 6 “The degree of proof necessary to establish probable cause for the issuance of 7 a search warrant is more than a suspici on or possibility but less than a certainty of 8 proof.” State v. Nyce , 2006-NMSC-026, ¶ 10, 139 N.M . 647, 137 P.3d 587 (internal 9 quotation marks and citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Williamson , 10 2009-NMSC-039, ¶ 29. “[A]n issuing court’ s determination of probable cause must 11 be upheld if the affidavit [for search warrant] provides a substantial basis to support 12 a finding of probable cause.” Williamson , 2009-NMSC-039, ¶ 29. “Our review is 13 limited to the four corners of th e search warrant affidavit.” Id. ¶ 31. 14 “When facts provided by an informer are independently corroborated, we 15 accord greater weight to th e informer’s credibility.” Dietrich , 2009-NMCA-031, ¶ 12. 16 “Identifying an ‘informant’ by name is a si gnificant factor in determining the veracity 17 or reliability of the information.” Id. “[A] named informant has greater incentive to 18 provide truthful information because he or she is subjectto unfavorable consequences 19for providing false or inaccurate informati on to a greater degree than an unnamed or 1 anonymous individual.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2 Defendant’s motion to suppress challenged the veracity prong of the Aguilar3 Spinellitest. She asserts that Officer Dre iling failed to confirm that the caller 4 described in the affidavit was in fact Brandi Earnest, and thus the information 5 provided in the call was similar to that fro m an anonymous informant. [RP 80] Thus, 6 Defendant argued, there was no past record of reliability or other basis for believing 7 the caller to be credible. 8 As mentioned above, we confine our reviewof the sufficiency of the affidavit 9 to its four corners. The affidavit st ated, “Affiant was contacted by phone by Brandi 10 Earnest on September 18, 2008,” and that the affiant “spoke to Billy McGinnis . . . , 11 a friend of the family who has been insidethe residence.” [RP 123-24] We agree 12 with Defendant that the affi davit says nothing about how or whether Officer Dreiling 13 knew Brandi Earnest or Billy McGinnis be forehand, whether she recognized their 14 voices, or whether she had any doubts as to the callers’ true identities. This Court, 15 however, limited to the four corners of the affidavit, will not engage in speculation 16 that the individuals might not have been who they said they were or that they might 17 have colluded in making false reports, nor will we presume that the officer did not 18 investigate these questions in the course of gathering facts supporting the need for a 19warrant. 1 For the reasons set forth above and in our calendar notices, we reverse the 2 district court’s conclusion th at the veracity prong of the Aguilar-Spinellitest for 3 probable cause was not satisfied. 4 TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE WARRANT 5 Defendant points out, as did the district court judge, that the signature of the 6 person witnessing the affidav it does not appear in the record proper, although the 7 affiant’s signature is present. [RP 89, 91, 124] Additionally, although the record 8 proper contains the affidavit for search warrant, it does not contai n the warrant itself. 9 For the reasons stated in our third calendar notice, we conclude that these defects in 10 the record are an insufficient reason to affirm the districtcourt’s grant of Defendant’s 11 motion to suppress. In summary, we observed that although the district court pointed 12 out the missing witness’s signature, the court did not base its ruling on this. We also 13 noted that neither the parties nor the district court below challenged the existence of 14 the warrant. Defendant’s written motion to suppress included the following language, 15 which appears to acknowledge that the warrant existed and was properly signed: 16 An affidavit for search warrant was prepared and sworn to [on] 17 September 19, 2008, by affiant [Officer ] Dreiling, Chief of Police, of 18 Melrose, Curry County, New Mexico. . . . The court signed the search 19 warrant and same was executed on September 19, 2008. . . . 20 Defendant challenges the truthf ulness, not of the affiant , but of Brandi 21Earnest. 1 (Emphasis added.) [RP 79] 2 We conclude that the allege d technical and procedural defects in the warrant are 3 an insufficient basis for invalidating it. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons stated above and in our calendar notices, we reverse the district 6 court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to s uppress evidence, and we remand for further 7 proceedings. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

__________________________________ 10 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

__________________________________ 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14

__________________________________ 15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 16