Opinion ID: 2633574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Probable Cause Requirement

Text: {9} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution both require probable cause to believe that a crime is occurring or seizable evidence exists at a particular location before a search warrant may issue. See also Rule 5-211(A). Accordingly, law enforcement officials must present an affidavit to a neutral and detached magistrate demonstrating probable cause. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948); accord State v. Baca, 97 N.M. 379, 640 P.2d 485 (1982). A magistrate is required, not because officers cannot make reasonable inferences from evidence, but because the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures prefers an independent review of the evidence, rather than one from police who are engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Johnson, 333 U.S. at 14. It follows then, that the magistrate's role is not simply to rubber stamp an officer's conclusion about probable cause. State v. Hughes, 532 P.2d 818, 822 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). Rather, [t]he constitutionally mandated role of magistrates and judges in the warrant process requires them to make an ` informed and deliberate ' determination whether probable cause exists. Cordova, 109 N.M. at 213, 784 P.2d at 32 (quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 110 (1964)) (emphasis added). {10} Probable cause exists when there are reasonable grounds to believe an offense has been or is being committed in the place to be searched. State v. Snedeker, 99 N.M. 286, 290, 657 P.2d 613, 617 (1982); Gonzales, 2003-NMCA-008, ¶ 11. Probable cause is not subject to bright line, hard-and-fast rules, but is a fact-based determination made on a case-by-case basis. See State v. Aull, 78 N.M. 607, 612, 435 P.2d 437, 442 (1967) (stating no two cases are precisely alike); People v. Miller, 75 P.3d 1108, 1113 (Colo. 2003) (en banc) (stating that probable cause analysis does not lend itself to mathematical certainties or bright line rules). The degree of proof necessary to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant `is more than a suspicion or possibility but less than a certainty of proof.' Gonzales, 2003-NMCA-008, ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Donaldson, 100 N.M. 111, 116, 666 P.2d 1258, 1263 (Ct. App. 1983)). When ruling on probable cause, we deal only in the realm of reasonable probabilities, and look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if probable cause is present. State v. Garcia, 79 N.M. 367, 368, 443 P.2d 860, 861 (1968); see United States v. Basham, 268 F.3d 1199, 1203 (10th Cir. 2001). {11} Any search pursuant to a warrant that has an affidavit lacking in probable cause is unreasonable. 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 3.3(a), at 83 (2d. ed. 1999). Accordingly, while we give deference to a magistrate's decision, and to an officer's observations, experience, and training, their conclusions must be objectively reasonable under all the circumstances. See State v. Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 149, 870 P.2d 103, 111 (1994) (In New Mexico, the ultimate question in all cases regarding alleged search and seizure violations is whether the search and seizure was reasonable.); see also State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 444, 863 P.2d 1052, 1065 (1993) (noting that Article II, Section 10 [of the New Mexico Constitution] expresses the fundamental notion that every person in this state is entitled to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusions). {12} The presence of objective reasonableness is especially important when dealing with the search of a home. See State v. Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 22, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032 (noting a search within a home raises unique concerns); Snedeker, 99 N.M. at 288, 657 P.2d at 615 (The fourth amendment . . . is intended to protect the sanctity of a person's home.); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980) (same). The privacy of a home is afforded the highest level of protection by our state and federal constitutions. State v. Monteleone, 2005-NMCA-129, ¶ 9, 138 N.M. 544, 123 P.3d 777, cert. granted, 2005-NMCERT-011, 138 N.M. 587, 124 P.3d 565. Both the state and federal constitutions ascribe a textual basis for protection of a home. See N.M. Const. art. II, § 10 (The people shall be secure in their . . . homes . . . from unreasonable searches and seizures . . . . (Emphasis added.)); U.S. Const. amend. IV (The right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . . (Emphasis added.)). Therefore, we give due weight to the fact that it is a home to be searched and its privacy invaded when we consider the objective reasonableness of a magistrate's warrant based on probable cause.