The court \u201cwill not suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the BCSO deputies’ search. The Court agrees with the United States’ contentions that the BCSO deputies acted reasonably when they entered Cruz’ home without a warrant, because they satisfy the destruction-of-evidence exception to warrantless entry. Regarding the disputed issues, the Court concludes that: (i) when Cruz ran from the BCSO deputies and the BCSO deputies had other evidence of Cruz’ drug trafficking, the BCSO deputies had probable cause that Cruz was engaged in drug trafficking, or, at least, that Cruz was attempting to traffic drugs; (ii) based on the same facts, the BCSO deputies had probable cause that Cruz possessed drugs, specifically methamphetamine; (iii) drug trafficking is a \u2018serious crime\u2019 for purposes of a warrantless entry into a home for the destruction-of-evidence exception to the warrant requirement; (iv) methamphetamine possession is a \u2018serious crime\u2019 for purposes of a warrantless entry into a home for the destruction-of-evidence exception to the warrant requirement; (v) destruction of evidence was likely when Cruz ran from the BCSO deputies and into his residence; (vi) Cruz’ running from the BCSO deputies and into his residence indicated an exigency that the BCSO deputies did not manipulate or abuse; (vii) the BCSO deputies were in hot pursuit of Cruz; and (viii) because the BCSO deputies lawfully entered Cruz’ residence, no unlawful entry tainted Cruz’ consent to search and the exclusionary rule does not apply.\u201d United States v. Cruz, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31239 (D. N.M. Feb. 27, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court \u201cwill not suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the BCSO deputies’ search. The Court agrees with the United States’ contentions that the BCSO deputies acted reasonably when they entered Cruz’ home without a warrant, because they satisfy the … Continue reading