STATE v. DANIEL R., 34 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Number: innmco20160216307
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2016
Summary: This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. MEMORANDUM OPINION GARCIA , Judge . {1} The State appealed from the district court's or
Summary: This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. MEMORANDUM OPINION GARCIA , Judge . {1} The State appealed from the district court's ord..
More
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GARCIA, Judge.
{1} The State appealed from the district court's order granting, in part, Daniel R.'s (Child) motion to suppress. This Court's calendar notice proposed to affirm on the basis that the district court's findings supported the ruling that there were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into Child's home, and therefore, the officer violated Child's rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. [RP 145-46] The State filed a response to the proposed disposition stating that it does not oppose the summary disposition. For these reasons, and those stated in this Court's calendar notice, we affirm.
{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, concurs.
Source: Leagle
