NM: Trial courts can raise search issues on their own

A trial judge in New Mexico noticed that there were an unusual number of suspect warrantless searches going unchallenged by the defense. She set suppression hearings and several cases were nolle prossed. A few survived to be heard. On certification from the court of appeals, the Supreme Court held that, without violating separation of powers, a trial court can sua sponte set a suppression hearing and make the parties litigate and the state defend the warrantless search, which is the state’s burden. Freedom from an unreasonable search is a fundamental right in this state, and the courts are to protect those rights. State v. Vasquez, 2024 N.M. LEXIS 245 (Nov. 18, 2024) (3-2) (A fascinating case worth one’s time to read.)

2255 petitioner seeks to litigate his search again but that’s barred by Stone. There’s no allegation that he was denied any opportunity to litigate or that evidence was hidden from him. Hahn v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209354 (D.N.M. Nov. 18, 2024).*

The anonymous complaint of a man in a specific car harassing a woman at a restaurant justified his stop when he was found. “If the defendant had simply requested the female’s phone number, it is unlikely that she would have made the complaint.” State v. Brumfield, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1893 ( La. App. 5 Cir Nov. 18, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.