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 stopped at a fixed United States Border Patrol checkpoint in New Mexico. During questioning, the Defendant exhibited nervous behavior, failed to provide vehicle documentation, and consented to a canine inspection of her vehicle. The canine alerted to the rear bumper, leading an agent to remove foam insulation and discover marijuana bundles. The Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search, finding that exigent circumstances justified the search (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the warrantless search of her vehicle violated the New Mexico Constitution as the State failed to prove exigent circumstances justifying the search (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the search was justified by exigent circumstances, citing the distance to the nearest magistrate, the time of night, and the limited number of agents on duty (para 12).
Legal Issues
- Did the State establish exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search of the Defendant's vehicle under the New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and remanded the case for entry of an order suppressing the evidence (para 24).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante J. concurring):
The Court held that the State failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search. Under the New Mexico Constitution, a warrantless search of an automobile requires both probable cause and exigent circumstances. The Court distinguished this case from State v. Snyder, noting that there were three agents on duty, a magistrate was available, and technology such as telephones and fax machines could have been used to obtain a warrant. The Court emphasized that fixed checkpoints do not create a per se exigency and that law enforcement must establish procedures to obtain warrants efficiently. The Defendant's consent to search the trunk and conduct a canine inspection did not extend to removing insulation and seizing contraband (paras 10-22).
Per Sutin J., specially concurring:
Sutin J. agreed with the result but argued that State v. Snyder should be explicitly overruled. He emphasized that fixed checkpoints should not inherently create exigent circumstances and that law enforcement must establish and follow procedures to obtain warrants. Only when such procedures fail should exigent circumstances be considered (paras 26-27).