This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 35,329 4 NOBLE DYESS, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant has appealed from convic tions for possession of a controlled 1 substance and possession of paraphernalia. Wepreviously issued a notice of proposed 2 summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the convictions. Defendant has 3 filed a memorandum in opposition. After dueconsideration, we remain unpersuaded. 4 We therefore affirm. 5 {2} We previously set forth the pertinent background information and relevant 6 principles of law in the notice of proposed summary disposition. We will avoid undue 7 reiteration here, and focus instead on the content of the memorandum in opposition. 8 {3} Defendant continues to challenge the c onstitutionality of the warrantless search 9 of the safe and seizure of the drugs and paraphernalia c ontained therein. [MIO 6-24] 10 {4} As we previously observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, 11 Defendant’s clear and unequivocal disclaimer of ownership of the safe [MIO 3] 12 constituted abandonment. [CN 3-4] See State v. McNeal , 2008-NMCA-004, ¶ 18, 143 13 N.M. 239, 175 P.3d 333 (“Courts have found unequivocal evidence of abandonment 14 when a person expressly states that he is not the owner of a bag.”); see generally State 15 v. Celusniak, 2004-NMCA-070, ¶ 28, 135 N.M. 728, 93 P.3d 10 (identifying a series 16 of factual scenarios that generally give rise to a finding of abandonment, “including 17 cases where the defendant disclaim s ownership of the property”); State v. Villanueva , 18 1990-NMCA-051, ¶ 24, 110 N.M. 359, 796 P. 2d 252 (“Where an individual denies 193 ownership or a possessory interest in property, such denial may deprive him of any 1 justified expectation of privacy in the object.”). In light of this abandonment, 2 Defendant cannot claim any reasonable expectation of privacy in the safe; and as such, 3 Defendant lacks standing tochallenge the search. See Celusniak , 2004-NMCA-070, 4 ¶ 25; see, e.g., Villanueva , 1990-NMCA-051, ¶¶ 26-27. Once the safe was opened, the 5 contraband in plain view therein was subject to seizure. See State v. Rivera , 6 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 28, 148 N.M. 659, 241 P.3d 1099 (“Under the plain view 7 doctrine, items may be seized without a warrant if the police officer was lawfully 8 positioned when the evidence was observed, and the incriminating nature of the 9 evidence was immediately apparent, such that the officer had probable cause to 10 believe that the article sei zed was evidence of a crime.” (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted)). 12 {5} In his memorandum in opposition Defendant argues that his disclaimer of 13 ownership did not constitute abandonment of the safe. [MIO 14] Defendant relies 14 heavily on out-of-state authority. However, the New Mexico cases previously cited 15 provide clear guidance on the effect of unequi vocal disclaimers. To the extent that 16 Defendant may invite this Court to depart therefrom, we decline to do so. 17 {6} Defendant further contends that the surrounding circumstances militate against 18 application of the doctrine of abandonment, [MIO 14-20] focusing specifically on the 194 nature of the container [M IO 13-14] and its location in a private residence where 1 Defendant was a guest. [MIO 14-19] In the absence of the disclaimer of ownership, 2 these considerations would have been hi ghly material. However, we fail to see how 3 Defendant could be said to have retained any cognizable privacy interest in the safe 4 once he disclaimed ownership thereof, particularly in light of the search of the 5 probationer-owner’s residence that wa s taking place at th e time. [RP 26] See generally 6 State v. Bolin , 2010-NMCA-066, ¶ 13, 148 N.M. 489, 238 P.3d 363 (noting the 7 constitutionality of warrantless s earches of probationers’ homes); State v. Baca , 8 2004-NMCA-049, ¶ 42, 135 N.M. 490, 90 P. 3d 509 (observing that probationary 9 status significantly reduces expectati ons of privacy, and supervision entails 10 warrantless searches). We therefore remain unpersuaded. 11 {7} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 12 disposition and above, we affirm. 13 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

_______________________________________ 15 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 195 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2