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 Defendants were stopped at a state police roadblock established to check drivers' licenses, vehicle registrations, and proof of insurance. During the stop, an officer detected the odor of marijuana emanating from their vehicle. A subsequent search, to which the Defendants allegedly consented, revealed 831 pounds of marijuana in the truck bed.
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: Denied the Defendants' motion to suppress evidence obtained during the roadblock stop and convicted them of unlawful distribution of marijuana following their no-contest pleas.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendants-Appellants: Argued that the roadblock violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution. They contended that the roadblock was not conducted in compliance with the guidelines established in City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt and that their detention and the subsequent search of their vehicle were unlawful and unsupported by probable cause.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the roadblock was lawful and that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for the detention and search. They also argued that the Defendants voluntarily consented to the search.
Legal Issues
- Was the roadblock that led to the Defendants' detention and arrest lawful?
- Was the subsequent detention, search, and seizure of the Defendants' vehicle lawful and supported by probable cause?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and upheld the Defendants' convictions.
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Hartz J. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendants failed to preserve their challenge to the roadblock's legality for appellate review. The record showed no specific argument regarding the roadblock's compliance with Betancourt guidelines was made at the trial level. The Court emphasized that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be considered on appeal unless they are jurisdictional.
Regarding the detention and search, the Court held that the officer's detection of the odor of marijuana provided probable cause to detain the Defendants and investigate further. The trial court's findings on the credibility of the officer's testimony and the voluntariness of the Defendants' consent to the search were supported by substantial evidence. The Court reiterated that probable cause requires only a probability of criminal conduct, not certainty.
Special Concurrence by Minzner J.:
Judge Minzner agreed with the result but expressed reservations about the majority's statement that motions to suppress must set out grounds with particularity. She noted that the Defendants' motion appeared to concede the legality of the initial stop and focused instead on the reasonableness of their detention after their documents were checked. She emphasized that a general challenge to the reasonableness of a roadblock under the Fourth Amendment would require the trial court to consider the Betancourt guidelines. However, since the Defendants did not raise this issue at trial, it was not preserved for appeal.