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 United States Customs Agent received information from a confidential informant about a truck transporting marijuana and cocaine from El Paso, Texas, to Colorado. A "Be-On-the-Lookout" (BOLO) bulletin was issued, describing the vehicle and its occupants. A deputy sheriff stopped a truck matching the description, leading to the discovery of approximately 65 pounds of marijuana in a hidden compartment after a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the vehicle (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Convicted the Defendant of possession of and conspiracy to possess marijuana.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the BOLO was not based on reliable information and did not provide reasonable suspicion for the stop. Further contended that the second stop was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and that the search of the vehicle lacked probable cause (paras 1, 8, 14, 18).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the BOLO provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for the stop and that the subsequent search was lawful due to the drug-sniffing dog's alert, which established probable cause (paras 11, 18).
Legal Issues
- Was the BOLO bulletin sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for the initial stop?
- Was the second stop of the vehicle justified under the circumstances?
- Did the officers have probable cause to search the vehicle?
- Did the Defendant waive her argument regarding the reliability of the confidential informant by failing to preserve it at trial?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 20).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Apodaca and Pickard JJ. concurring):
BOLO and Reasonable Suspicion: The Court held that the BOLO provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for the initial stop. The vehicle matched the detailed description in the BOLO, including its color, make, direction of travel, and license plate origin. The deputy's decision to stop the vehicle on a lesser-traveled route was reasonable (paras 11-13).
Second Stop: The Court found that the second stop, initiated to confirm the passenger's identity, was permissible. The minimal intrusion and the short time elapsed between the stops did not violate the Defendant's constitutional rights. The second stop was considered a continuation of the initial investigation (paras 14-16).
Probable Cause: The Court determined that the drug-sniffing dog's alert provided probable cause to search the vehicle. The discovery of the Defendant's name matching the BOLO further justified the detention and investigation (paras 17-18).
Confidential Informant: The Court ruled that the Defendant waived her argument regarding the informant's reliability by failing to raise it adequately at trial. The lack of preservation deprived the State of the opportunity to address the issue (paras 8-10).
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and upheld the Defendant's convictions (para 20).