NM: Aguilar-Spinelli are still followed here and they were satisfied

Aguilar-Spinelli is still followed in New Mexico, and its strictures were met here. Motion to suppress properly denied, and court of appeals reversed. State v. Perea, 2025 N.M. LEXIS 91 (June 5, 2025):

P1 This case requires us to determine whether information provided by a confidential informant (CI) in an application for a search warrant satisfies the requirement of probable cause for a search warrant under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. Rule 5-211(E) NMRA requires probable cause to be “based on substantial evidence, which may be hearsay in whole or in part, provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished.” Our rule codifies the requirements of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (abrogated by Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) (same abrogation). The United States Supreme Court subsequently “abandon[ed]” the Aguilar-Spinelli test in favor of a “totality of the circumstances analysis” in Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, but we continue to follow the two-prong test set forth in Aguilar-Spinelli because it more closely “effectuates the principles behind Article II, Section 10” of the New Mexico Constitution. State v. Cordova, 1989-NMSC-083, ¶ 17, 109 N.M. 211, 784 P.2d 30.

P2 Under Rule 5-211(E), when an affidavit for a search warrant relies on a CI’s hearsay in whole or in part, the affidavit must set forth both (1) a substantial basis for believing the informant to be credible and (2) a substantial basis for the reliability of the information provided by the informant. Id. ¶ 11. This case concerns only the second requirement, as there is no dispute about whether the informant is credible. For the reasons stated, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ memorandum opinion which reversed the district court and held the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained sufficient facts to enable the magistrate court to find probable cause. See State v. Perea, A-1-CA-38407, mem. op. ¶¶ 14-15 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2022) (nonprecedential). We write, however, to clarify the proper reasoning.

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.