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 police officer responded to a domestic disturbance call involving the Defendant. Upon encountering the Defendant walking on the street, the officer attempted to stop him. The Defendant ignored commands to stop, kept his hands in his pockets, and appeared to fumble with something. The officer, fearing the Defendant might have a weapon, used pepper spray. The Defendant continued walking, dropped a baggie containing cocaine, and was subsequently tackled and arrested. Marijuana was also found during a search incident to arrest (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that the initial stop was justified (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop, making the seizure of cocaine unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the New Mexico Constitution provided greater protection and that the preservation requirement for state constitutional claims violated equal protection (paras 1, 9, 29).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant based on the domestic disturbance call and concerns for officer safety. The Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant failed to preserve his state constitutional claims (paras 4, 10).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant seized under the Fourth Amendment before discarding the cocaine?
- Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop?
- Does the New Mexico Constitution provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in this context?
- Does the preservation requirement for state constitutional claims violate equal protection?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress (para 33).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Wechsler and Fry JJ. concurring):
Fourth Amendment Seizure: The Court held that the Defendant was not seized under the Fourth Amendment when he discarded the cocaine. Applying California v. Hodari D., the Court found that the Defendant did not submit to the officer's show of authority and that the use of pepper spray did not constitute a seizure because it did not restrain the Defendant's movement (paras 6-28).
Reasonable Suspicion: Since the Defendant was not seized before discarding the cocaine, the Court did not address whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop (para 28).
State Constitutional Claim: The Court declined to consider whether the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment because the Defendant failed to preserve this argument at trial. Citing State v. Gomez, the Court emphasized that merely citing the state constitution is insufficient to preserve such claims (paras 9-10).
Equal Protection: The Court rejected the Defendant's equal protection argument, holding that the preservation requirement applies equally to all litigants and does not create discriminatory classifications (paras 29-32).