{ "id": 731590, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddie ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Allen", "decision_date": "1992-05-29", "docket_number": "No. 13819", "first_page": "146", "last_page": "147", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "114 N.M. 146" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "835 P.2d 862" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "98 N.M. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582581 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/98/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 N.M. 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1586377 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "mere assertion of prejudice does not establish prejudice" }, { "parenthetical": "mere assertion of prejudice does not establish prejudice" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/101/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 N.M. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 720254 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/112/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 N.M. 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1588533 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/100/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 L.Ed.2d 675", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 S.Ct. 2635", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "422 U.S. 1011", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9696, 9476, 9637, 9445, 9444, 9683, 9657, 9595, 9533, 9662, 9661 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/422/1011-07", "/us/422/1011-09", "/us/422/1011-10", "/us/422/1011-01", "/us/422/1011-05", "/us/422/1011-11", "/us/422/1011-04", "/us/422/1011-08", "/us/422/1011-06", "/us/422/1011-03", "/us/422/1011-02" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.M. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2833127 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/87/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 U.S. 206", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11336196 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/385/0206-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 295, "char_count": 3568, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.041370682972539e-08, "percentile": 0.31660069756962667 }, "sha256": "0783df4c6748b192d9c626886dc741ba944f527a31f1df3ce5ce2d62aacc04ae", "simhash": "1:2b705a8c4b22fc6a", "word_count": 549 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:13.314573+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "DONNELLY and MINZNER, JJ\u201e concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddie ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nALARID, Chief Judge.\nDefendant appeals from his conviction as an accessory in cocaine trafficking. Our calendar notice proposed summary affirmance, and defendant responded with a memorandum in opposition. We have considered defendant\u2019s arguments and are not persuaded. We affirm.\nFACTS\nOfficer Dustin Peterson was working undercover. Peterson testified that he was looking for defendant\u2019s brother when he met defendant. Defendant took Peterson into his house and offered to find a controlled substance for him. Defendant left his house and returned with his brother, who then sold cocaine to Peterson. During the trial, defendant objected to the admission of any evidence developed subsequent to the officer\u2019s entry into defendant\u2019s house.\nENTRY BY DECEPTION\nDefendant acknowledges that decisions of the Supreme Courts of the United States and New Mexico establish that entry by deception does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 87 S.Ct. 424, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966); State v. Chavez, 87 N.M. 180, 531 P.2d 603 (Ct.App.1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2635, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975). Nonetheless, he argues that those authorities should not be followed because it is logically impossible to voluntarily consent to an entry obtained by deception.\nDefendant does not contend that Officer Peterson searched, forcibly entered his residence, or that anything other than the purchased cocaine was taken away. There is no indication that Peterson saw, heard, or took anything that was not contemplated and intended by defendant as part of the illegal transaction. Furthermore, by taking Peterson into the house, defendant chose the location where both the conversation and the transaction took place. In short, the deception did not result in any breach of privacy. See Lewis v. United States (undercover narcotics agent admitted to defendant\u2019s home to purchase marijuana). Since there was no breach of defendant\u2019s legitimate interest in privacy, the officer\u2019s conduct did not abridge defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights. See State v. Chavez (distinguishing officer\u2019s entry into room from situation where entry was forcible in nature).\nDefendant requests that we construe our state constitution to grant him greater protection from searches and seizures than is afforded under the federal constitution. We decline this invitation for two reasons: defendant cites no authority to support his position, see In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (1984); and defendant did not claim below that the New Mexico Constitution gives more Fourth Amendment protections than the federal constitution. See State v. Sutton, 112 N.M. 449, 816 P.2d 518 (Ct.App.1991).\nPROSECUTOR\u2019S COMMENT\nOur calendar notice proposed to affirm this issue because defendant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor\u2019s actions were prejudicial. See State v. Hoxsie, 101 N.M. 7, 677 P.2d 620 (1984) (mere assertion of prejudice does not establish prejudice). Defendant has not pointed out any error in fact or law with respect to this basis for affirmance. See State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 647 P.2d 403 (1982).\nWe affirm.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nDONNELLY and MINZNER, JJ\u201e concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ALARID, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Sammy J. Quintana, Chief Public Defender, Bruce Rogoff, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "835 P.2d 862\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Freddie ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 13819.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 29, 1992.\nCertiorari Denied June 30, 1992.\nTom Udall, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.\nSammy J. Quintana, Chief Public Defender, Bruce Rogoff, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0146-01", "first_page_order": 180, "last_page_order": 181 }