{
  "id": 1571140,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Valdez",
  "decision_date": "1978-03-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 3246",
  "first_page": "567",
  "last_page": "569",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 567"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "577 P.2d 465"
    }
  ],
  "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": "88 N.M. 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2836898
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2866537
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "557 P.2d 576",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2867136,
        2863682
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0727-01",
        "/nm/89/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2867136
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "450 F.2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        793785
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/450/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 P.2d 893",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 Wash. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        846685
      ],
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/163/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 P.2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10556075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/p2d/496/0121-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 A.2d 93",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1940,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Md. 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        2270009
      ],
      "year": 1940,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/178/0553-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 P. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Wash. 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        778161,
        778171
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/136/0694-01",
        "/wash/136/0694-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 P. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Wash. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        778200
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/136/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ariz.App. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ariz. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1244042
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ariz-app/24/0492-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 4703,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.83,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.52853609352658e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4007633263560926
    },
    "sha256": "0330e6514bc10dd212e6cbf96ba20248e3e2e66e3c69bb7de3d638636553a713",
    "simhash": "1:a4f224cc30ca34a7",
    "word_count": 759
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from his conviction for possession of heroin raises a search and seizure question. We discuss: (1) lawfulness of officers\u2019 presence; (2) lawfulness of defendant\u2019s detention; and (3) probable cause to search.\nOfficers had a search warrant to search Baca, the premises, curtilage and a car described in the affidavit, and \u201call persons aged 17-50 on or arriving at the premises . at time of execution of the search warrant.\u201d Baca, defendant, and two females were on the premises, getting ready to leave the premises in a car, when officers arrived to execute the warrant. These four persons returned to the residence while the search was conducted. While in the residence, defendant was searched. Several caps of heroin were found in his sock, two syringes were found in his pocket. Defendant claims this search and seizure was illegal, and the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized.\nLawfulness of Officers\u2019 Presence\nNo one claims that the \u201call persons\u201d language in the search warrant authorized a search of defendant. Accordingly, we do not consider whether the affidavit justified an \u201call persons\u201d warrant.\nDefendant contends the \u201call persons\u201d language made the warrant an invalid general warrant and, therefore, the officers were not lawfully on the premises. We disagree. The \u201call persons\u201d language did not cause the warrant to be invalid as to Baca or his premises; rather, the \u201call persons\u201d language was surplusage. State v. Maddasion, 24 Ariz.App. 492, 539 P.2d 966 (1975). The warrant being valid as to Baca and his premises, the officers were lawfully on the premises pursuant to the warrant.\nLawfulness of Defendant\u2019s Detention\nThe trial court found that defendant voluntarily returned to the residence from the car. Defendant asserts the evidence does not support this finding. The evidence of voluntariness is conflicting; substantial evidence supports the finding. The finding, however, is not dispositive of the lawfulness of defendant\u2019s detention.\nWhether or not defendant voluntarily returned to the residence, the evidence is that once he returned to the residence, he was not free to leave. Thus, the issue is the lawfulness of defendant\u2019s detention regardless of whether it began at the car or inside the residence.\nCity of Olympia v. Culp, 136 Wash. 374, 240 P. 360 (1925), aff\u2019d, 136 Wash. 694, 240 P. 362 (1925), states:\nOfficers making a search of premises under a search warrant may lawfully detain all persons found therein until the search is concluded. Any other rule would frustrate the purposes of the search; the officers would be compelled to stand idly by while the articles for which the search was instituted were carried away.\nSee Frankel v. State, 178 Md. 553, 16 A.2d 93 (1940); Van Horn v. State, 496 P.2d 121 (Okl.Cr.1972); State v. Ryan, 163 Wash. 496, 1 P.2d 893 (1931). Whether the detention is called an investigatory stop or an arrest, it is reasonable to detain persons found on the premises while the search is being conducted pursuant to a search warrant. Compare United States v. Sanchez, 450 F.2d 525 (10th Cir. 1971).\nDefendant was lawfully detained while Baca\u2019s premises were searched pursuant to the warrant.\nProbable Cause to Search\nWe do not consider the argument that the officers had probable cause to search defendant at the time they arrived on the premises.\nWhile being detained, defendant was observed to nod, his eyes were droopy and his speech was slurred. The testimony, based on the officer\u2019s experience, was that this was the \u201cnormal\u201d reaction after heroin use. There was no odor of alcohol from defendant. The officer \u201cknew for a fact\u201d that defendant was a heroin user. The officer testified that, in light of his observations and experience, defendant had \u201cused\u201d heroin within a matter of minutes of the officer\u2019s observations.\nThe matters in the foregoing paragraph are more than the intuition claimed by defendant; the matters provided probable cause to believe defendant possessed heroin, and probable cause for the search at which the heroin was found. State v. Santillanes, 89 N.M. 727, 557 P.2d 576 (Ct.App.1976); State v. Yanez, 89 N.M. 397, 553 P.2d 252 (Ct.App.1976); State v. Blea, 88 N.M. 538, 543 P.2d 831 (Ct.App.1975); United States v. Sanchez, supra.\nThe judgment and sentence are affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anthony E. Lucero, Jr., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Paquin M. Terrazas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "577 P.2d 465\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 3246.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 28, 1978.\nAnthony E. Lucero, Jr., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Paquin M. Terrazas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0567-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 605
}