This is reflected in the requirement of Rule 17 that probable cause be based upon substantial evidence. In State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 694, 579 P.2d 1257, 1261 (N.M.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978), the court said: "Probable cause" means a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.
Probable cause in New Mexico "'means a reasonable ground for belief of guilt,'" and "'exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers, based on reasonably trustworthy information, is sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.'" State v. Snedeker, 1982-NMSC-085, ¶ 21, 657 P.2d 613, 617, 99 N.M. 286 (quoting State v. James, 1978-NMCA-046, ¶ 13, 579 P.2d 1257, 1261, 91 N.M. 690, overruled on other grounds by State v. Cervantes, 1979-NMCA-029, ¶ 24, 593 P.2d 478, 484, 92 N.M. 643). The Supreme Court of New Mexico has stated that, to establish probable cause, "(1) only a probability of criminal conduct need be shown; (2) there need be less vigorous proof than the rules of evidence require to determine guilt of an offense; (3) common sense should control; (4) great deference should be shown by courts to a magistrate's determination of probable cause."
[¶ 10] Several other jurisdictions have employed a definition of contraband similar to that suggested by the State. See, e.g., United States v. $45,140.00 Currency, 839 F. Supp. 556, 558 (N.D.Ill. 1993) (stating that "[p]roperty which is unlawful to produce or possess is contraband"); State v. James, 579 P.2d 1257, 1265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (including in the definition of contraband "any article, the possession of which is declared illegal by the legislature"), overruled on other grounds by State v. Cervantes, 593 P.2d 478 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979); Brinegar v. State, 262 P.2d 464, 477 (Okla. Cr. 1953) (defining contraband as "anything prohibited or excluded by law").
The seizure of the tapes and recorder was based upon a suspicion of criminal conduct; it was not based upon knowledge of any previous criminal activity. See State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 579 P.2d 1257 (Ct.App. 1978), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978). "[T]he mere suspicion or expectation that an item may prove, in some unknown way, incriminating to a defendant is not sufficient justification for the seizure of the item. (Footnote omitted.)" 68 Am.Jur.2d Searches and Seizures § 85 (1973).
See Cervantes, 92 N.M. at 648, 593 P.2d at 483. We also indicated that, to the extent Gutierrez and State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 579 P.2d 1257 (Ct.App. 1978), suggested or treated this law to the contrary, those cases were not to be followed. See Cervantes, 92 N.M. at 648, 593 P.2d at 483.
It exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers, based upon reasonably trustworthy information, is sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed." State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 694, 579 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Ct.App. 1978) (emphasis added). A survey of other states with implied consent acts similar to ours, which have squarely addressed this issue, persuades us that our interpretation of the Act is correct.
A search warrant allows a good faith search of described premises for described property. State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 579 P.2d 1257 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978). Police officers may search the areas of the described premises where they have a reasonable expectation of finding the described property.
State v. Snedeker, 99 N.M. 286, 657 P.2d 613 (1982); State v. Duran, 90 N.M. 741, 568 P.2d 267 (Ct.App. 1977); see also Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). As stated in State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 579 P.2d 1257 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978), "`probable cause' means a reasonable ground for belief of guilt. It exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers, based upon reasonably trustworthy information, is sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.
It exists where the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers, based upon reasonably trustworthy information, is sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 694, 579 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978). Probable cause for issuing a search warrant may be based on hearsay "provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished."
Probable cause is variously defined; however, the most common statement requires reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect has committed a crime. See, e. g., Rodriquez v. State, 91 N.M. 700, 580 P.2d 126 (1978); State v. James, 91 N.M. 690, 579 P.2d 1257 (Ct.App. 1978). In determining the officers' reasonable grounds, his reliance on hearsay is not dispositive.