This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was subjected to a pat-down search by a law enforcement officer. During the search, the officer felt a hard object in the Defendant's pocket, which the Defendant identified upon inquiry. The officer then felt a "soft bulge" in the Defendant's pocket and removed it, discovering soft baggies. The search and seizure were conducted as part of a protective search for weapons.
Procedural History
- District Court, Valencia County: The Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search was denied.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a protective search by removing items from his pockets that could not reasonably be considered weapons.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the officer's actions were justified because the officer first felt a hard object, asked the Defendant about it, and then proceeded to remove the soft baggies. The State argued that the search was within the scope of a protective search.
Legal Issues
- Whether the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a protective search by removing items from the Defendant's pockets that could not reasonably be considered weapons.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Vigil and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that a protective search must be limited to discovering weapons or items that could reasonably be considered weapons. While the officer was justified in conducting a pat-down search and feeling for hard objects that might be weapons, there was no evidence to suggest that the hard object felt in the Defendant's pocket was suspected to be a weapon. Furthermore, the removal of the "soft bulge" exceeded the scope of a protective search, as it could not reasonably be considered a weapon or potential weapon. The evidence obtained from the search should have been suppressed. The Court also noted that the State's reliance on a Florida case was misplaced, as it did not involve the more restrictive standard applied to protective searches under New Mexico law.