{"id":6356,"date":"2012-06-10T19:28:16","date_gmt":"2011-12-04T00:39:09","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-12-03T20:02:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6356","title":{"rendered":"NM explains its deferential standard of review is &#8220;substantial basis standard of review&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Review of a magistrate\u2019s finding of probable cause is subject to a deferential standard of review, and \u201c[a] reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of the issuing court.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nmcompcomm.us\/nmcases\/NMSC\/2011\/11sc-040.pdf\">State v. Trujillo<\/a>, 150 N.M. 721, 2011 NMSC 40, 266 P.3d 1 (2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*18]  \u201c[T]he substantial basis standard of review is more deferential than the de novo review applied to questions of law, but less deferential than the substantial evidence standard applied to questions of fact.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14787841370925799921&amp;q=2009+NMSC+39&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Williamson<\/a>, 2009 NMSC 39, \u00b6 30. The United States Supreme Court reasoned that \u201c[a] deferential standard of review is appropriate to further the &#8230; strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=38195032795208909&amp;q=massachusetts+v.+upton&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Massachusetts v. Upton<\/a>, 466 U.S. 727, 733 (1984). A deferential stance \u201cto the warrant process encourages police officers to procure a search warrant.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14787841370925799921&amp;q=2009+NMSC+39&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Williamson<\/a>, 2009 NMSC 39, \u00b6 28. This in turn provides \u201ca layer of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures\u201d without a warrant. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, \u201c\u2018the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.\u2019\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=38195032795208909&amp;q=massachusetts+v.+upton&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Upton<\/a>, 466 U.S. at 734 (quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12245187479519395053&amp;q=Ventresca&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">United States v. Ventresca<\/a>, 380 U.S. 102, 109 (1965)).<\/p>\n<p>[*19]  This standard \u201cdoes not preclude the reviewing court from conducting a meaningful analysis of whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14787841370925799921&amp;q=2009+NMSC+39&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Williamson<\/a>, 2009 NMSC 39, \u00b6 30. Rather, \u201c[i]f, after reviewing the affidavit as a whole, the direct and circumstantial evidence alleged, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations, does not support the issuing court\u2019s determination of probable cause, then the search is invalid and unreasonable.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But, if the factual basis for issuing the warrant is sufficiently detailed in the affidavit, \u201cand the issuing court \u2018has found probable cause, the [reviewing] courts should not invalidate the warrant by interpreting the affidavit in a hypertechnical, rather than commonsense, manner.\u2019\u201d Id. (quoting <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12245187479519395053&amp;q=Ventresca&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,33\">Ventresca<\/a>, 380 U.S. at 109). As stated previously, under a deferential standard the reviewing judge does not substitute his or her judgment for that of the issuing judge.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6356\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}