to satisfy the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test articulated in State v. Cordova, 109 N.M. 211, 784 P.2d 30 (1989) and Rule 5-211(E) NMRA 1998, promulgated by the Supreme Court? We conclude that the children’s court properly determined that the affidavit submitted in support of the issuance of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. {7} The protections accorded under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures are more extensive than those provided under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Campos v. State, 117 N.M. 155, 158, 870 P.2d 117, 120 (1994) (state constitution imposes heightened probable cause requirement); State v. Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 149-50, 870 P.2d 103, 111-12 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Gutierrez, 116 N.M. 431, 446-47, 863
holding that a ruling on preindictment motion that search and seizure were legal collaterally estopped defendant from later moving to suppress evidence claiming that search and seizure were illegal holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible holding that the exclusionary rule embodied in the search and seizure provision of the state constitution applies in probation revocation proceedings holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause holding knock and announce requirement implicit in state constitutional search and seizure provision