Featured
NM Supreme Court rules search warrant valid in Alamogordo drug case
The New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Fe.
Published
Modified
A divided New Mexico Supreme Court issued Thursday on a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant in a pending criminal case in Otero County. The ruling allows a trial to proceed for an Alamogordo woman facing drug possession charges.
Michelle Perea, 48, was indicted by a grand jury in 2019 on possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia charges. Perea challenged the search warrant authorizing Alamogordo police to search her home, where police said methamphetamine was found.
The warrant stated that 鈥渨ithin the last 72 hours a quantity of methamphetamine consistent with trafficking has been seen by the (confidential informant).鈥�
Perea鈥檚 attorney argued that the warrant was defective because it did not state the basis for that knowledge, how much methamphetamine had been observed or how the informant knew the amount was 鈥渃onsistent with trafficking.鈥�
State District Judge Angie Schneider ruled that probable cause had not been established to justify the search warrant, and the resulting evidence inadmissible. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and Perea appealed to the state Supreme Court as her trial was put on hold.
Under New Mexico law, hearsay by a confidential informant is considered sufficient for probable cause if the informant is credible and there is a substantial basis for the informant鈥檚 knowledge, according the state Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice C. Shannon Bacon.
The informant鈥檚 credibility was not called into question. As to the second requirement, the high court ruled, 鈥渢he affidavit identified that the (confidential informant) personally observed an illegal substance, in quantities sufficient to indicate illegal activity, and therefore provided sufficient factual detail from which the magistrate court could reasonably infer 鈥榩robable cause to believe that a search (would) uncover evidence of wrongdoing.鈥�
Justice Michael Vigil dissented, arguing the informant鈥檚 statement was enough to establish probable cause for possession of methamphetamine, but not for a charge of trafficking 鈥� a different crime with different penalties.
Vigil wrote that the informant鈥檚 statement about trafficking 鈥渋s not supported by stating any of the conditions under which (they) saw methamphetamine, the circumstances in which the methamphetamine was seen, the amount of methamphetamine, how the methamphetamine was packaged, if at all, whether there was any paraphernalia used in the packaging and sale of methamphetamine, what the (informant) saw to say that the methamphetamine was 鈥榖eing handled鈥� by Petitioner, or any other details.鈥�
Vigil added that the warrant was not even clear whether the opinion that Perea had an amount of the drug 鈥渃onsistent with trafficking鈥� was the informant鈥檚 opinion or that of the police detective.
The majority included state District Judge Cindy Leos, taking the place of Justice Julie Vargas, who recused herself. Vigil was the lone dissenter.
The ruling allows Perea鈥檚 trial to proceed with the evidence discovered under the search warrant to be included in the prosecution of her case.
