This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Law enforcement officers, acting on information provided by a cooperating individual (JW), investigated a suspected drug transaction. JW arranged a narcotics purchase with the Defendant and a woman named Darlene, who were expected to arrive in a white Ford van. Officer Miller stopped the van after observing traffic violations and corroborating details provided by JW. A search revealed drugs on the Defendant and a drug pipe in the vehicle. The Defendant was charged with trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic, tampering with evidence, and unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon (paras headnotes, paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop and search.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the stop was pretextual and lacked reasonable suspicion, as Officer Miller acted on information from another officer without independent verification. The Defendant contended that the stop violated the principles established in State v. Ochoa regarding pretextual stops.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the stop was lawful, supported by reasonable suspicion based on corroborated information from JW, and that Officer Miller observed traffic violations independently justifying the stop.
Legal Issues
- Was the traffic stop pretextual and therefore unlawful under State v. Ochoa?
- Did Officer Miller have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on information provided by JW?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress and upheld the conviction.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the stop was not unlawfully pretextual. Although Officer Miller admitted that the stop was part of a drug investigation, he also observed traffic violations, which independently justified the stop. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion existed based on JW's detailed and corroborated information, including the vehicle's description, registration, and location. Officer Miller's independent verification of these details further supported the stop's legality. The Defendant's arguments failed to demonstrate error in the district court's analysis or the proposed disposition.