AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A 15-year-old child was taken into custody by a police officer in Alamogordo, New Mexico, for violating a municipal curfew ordinance. The officer conducted a pat-down search before placing the child in the police vehicle, during which he discovered marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and other items in the child’s pockets. The child was later charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Children's Court of Otero County: Denied the child's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the pat-down search (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that the pat-down search was unlawful because a curfew violation is not an arrestable offense, the search exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry frisk, and the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the child was armed and dangerous (paras 7-8, 11, 17-18).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and necessary for officer safety when transporting the child in a police vehicle (paras 8, 15-16).

Legal Issues

• Was the pat-down search of the child lawful under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution?
• Did the officer exceed the permissible scope of a protective search by searching the child’s pockets?
• Was the officer’s rationale for the search pretextual?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the children's court's denial of the motion to suppress and upheld the judgment against the child (para 19).

Reasons

Per Donnelly J. (Bosson and Armijo JJ. concurring):

• The court found that the pat-down search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The officer had a duty to transport the child in his police vehicle and conducted the search as a safety precaution (paras 8, 12-16).
• The court applied the balancing test from Terry v. Ohio, emphasizing the need to protect officer safety against the intrusion on the individual’s rights. The officer’s testimony about his safety concerns was credible and supported the reasonableness of the search (paras 12-16).
• The search of the child’s pockets was justified because the officer felt hard objects that could potentially be used as weapons. The court determined that the search did not exceed the permissible scope of a protective search (paras 17-18).
• The court rejected the argument that the officer’s rationale was pretextual, deferring to the children’s court’s credibility findings and emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case (para 18).