be the beginning, not the end, of the investigation.” Id. ¶ 22. There was no indication that Defendant was known to the Affiant, a member of the local narcotics task force, to be involved with illegal drugs. There is no indication in the affidavit that the Affiant checked law enforcement databases to determine whether Defendant had prior arrests or convictions for drug-related offenses or that the Affiant otherwise attempted to develop information linking Defendant or the addressee to illegal drugs. The Affiant did not attempt to speak with Defendant’s neighbors, nor did he attempt a “knock and talk.” Applying Nyce and the following cases, State v. Anderson, 107 N.M. 165, 169, 754 P.2d 542, 546 (Ct.App.1988), State v. Zelinske, 108 N.M. 784, 786-88, 779 P.2d 971, 973-75 (Ct. App.1989) (<HOLDING>) overruled on other grounds by State v.
holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper holding the odor of an etherlike substance in combination with other circumstances gave officers probable cause to search a vehicle holding that officers observation of heavily taped detergent box coupled with odor of deodorizing agent and suspects withdrawal of consent to further search did not supply probable cause to believe that detergent box contained illegal drugs holding that probable cause to believe certain individuals were members of a conspiracy did not give probable cause to search the contents of the room in which they were arrested