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 juvenile (the "Child") was found sitting in a parked vehicle with her brother near a border patrol checkpoint. Border patrol agents approached the vehicle and detected the smell of burnt marijuana. The agents observed a homemade pipe and marijuana in the vehicle. The Child admitted to smoking marijuana before school, and her brother corroborated this statement. The Child was subsequently charged with possession of marijuana.

Procedural History

• District Court, Luna County: Found the Child delinquent based on possession of marijuana.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence, claiming she was unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of possession of marijuana, asserting that her admission was not adequately corroborated and that ingestion alone does not establish possession.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the border patrol agents did not need reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle as the Child was not "seized" under the Fourth Amendment. The State also argued that the evidence, including the Child's admission, the smell of marijuana, the presence of a pipe, and her brother's corroboration, was sufficient to establish possession.

Legal Issues

• Did the border patrol agents require reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle in which the Child was sitting?
• Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of possession of marijuana?
• Does the New Mexico Constitution provide greater protection than the United States Constitution in this context?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's finding of delinquency based on possession of marijuana.

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Garcia JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the border patrol agents did not need reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle because the Child was not "seized" under the Fourth Amendment. The Court emphasized that a seizure occurs only when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, and there was no evidence that the agents restrained the Child's ability to leave.
• The Court rejected the Child's argument that her status as a juvenile alone rendered her encounter with the agents a seizure, noting that this factor is not determinative under the totality of the circumstances.
• Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court found that the Child's admission to smoking marijuana was corroborated by the agents' testimony about the smell of burnt marijuana, the presence of a pipe, and her brother's statements. This corroboration satisfied the statutory requirement for extrajudicial admissions.
• The Court further concluded that ingestion or consumption of marijuana could establish possession if the State demonstrated that the Child knew it was marijuana, had it in her presence, and exercised control over it. The evidence supported these elements.
• The Court declined to address the Child's argument that the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protection than the federal constitution because the argument was not adequately developed or preserved.