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 detective from the Roswell Police Department stopped a vehicle after observing a passenger not wearing a seatbelt. During the stop, the detective smelled burnt marijuana and observed a smoking device in plain view. A consensual search of the vehicle revealed marijuana and methamphetamine. The detective, part of a special investigatory unit with a zero-tolerance policy, did not issue citations for the seatbelt violation but later arrested the driver after confirming the presence of methamphetamine through field tests.
Procedural History
- District Court, Chaves County: The court granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding the traffic stop to be pretextual and not primarily for enforcing traffic laws.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the pretext doctrine from State v. Ochoa should not apply to stops made under a zero-tolerance policy aimed at deterring crime. Claimed the stop was not pretextual as the officer did not suspect the defendant of another crime at the time of the stop and likened the stop to constitutionally permissible roadblocks.
- Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the stop was pretextual, as the officer’s primary intent was to investigate unrelated criminal activity rather than enforce traffic laws. Highlighted the officer’s lack of uniform, use of an unmarked car, and failure to issue citations for the seatbelt violation.
Legal Issues
- Was the traffic stop pretextual and therefore unconstitutional under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to suppress the evidence.
Reasons
Per Robles J. (Wechsler and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court upheld the district court’s finding that the stop was pretextual, emphasizing that the officer’s primary intent was to investigate unrelated criminal activity rather than enforce traffic laws. The district court’s factual findings, including the officer’s use of an unmarked car, lack of uniform, and failure to issue seatbelt citations, were supported by substantial evidence. The Court rejected the State’s argument that the zero-tolerance policy exempted the stop from scrutiny under the pretext doctrine, distinguishing such stops from constitutionally permissible roadblocks. The Court declined to reweigh the evidence or create a new exception to the protections established in State v. Ochoa.