NM: Anhydrous ammonia leak is PC but not exigency to dispense with warrant

Annhydrous ammonia leak is not exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry into defendant’s garage. State v. Moore, 2008 NMCA 56, 144 N.M. 14, 183 P.3d 158 (App. 2008):

[*14] Our cases therefore establish that mere probable cause that a methamphetamine lab exists is not per se an exigent circumstance that will justify a warrantless entry into a home. Police officers must still have knowledge of specific, articulable facts that demonstrate that immediate action is necessary “to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.” Copeland, 105 N.M. at 31, 727 P.2d at 1346; see State v. Duffy, 1998 NMSC 14, P 70, 126 N.M. 132, 967 P.2d 807 (“[T]he presence of exigent circumstances must be supported by specific articulable facts.”), modified on other grounds by State v. Gallegos, 2007 NMSC 7, P 17, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828.

N.M. “misdemeanor arrest rule does not apply to investigatory stops. We further hold that, under the Fourth Amendment, the stop was reasonable because an officer may reasonably rely on information from another officer that a crime has been or is being committed. Because the Court of Appeals improperly relied on New Mexico’s misdemeanor arrest rule, we reverse the Court of Appeals opinion and remand to the Court of Appeals to determine whether the stop was pretextual and, if so, whether article II, section 10 prohibits pretextual stops.” This was a stop for a seatbelt violation. State v. Ochoa, 2008 NMSC 23, 143 N.M. 749, 182 P.3d 130 (2008).

Arresting plaintiff outside her house for the benefit of TV cameras obviated the need for a protective sweep. Milligan v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36635 (M.D. Tenn. May 2, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.