This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two police officers observed a driver run a red light and later identified him as having a revoked license. The officers encountered the driver at the Defendant's property, where he attempted to avoid them. After arresting the driver, one officer searched the Defendant's backyard without finding contraband. The Defendant protested the officer's presence, using profane language. During a subsequent strip search at the jail, a plastic bag containing crack cocaine was found on the Defendant, leading to charges of trafficking a controlled substance and disorderly conduct (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The Defendant was convicted of trafficking a controlled substance and disorderly conduct (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial testimony about the property being a "crack house" and the driver's drug history. Contended that the disorderly conduct statute was vague and overbroad, and that the arrest and subsequent search were illegal, making the evidence inadmissible (para 7).
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the Defendant's actions constituted disorderly conduct and justified the arrest. Argued that the evidence obtained during the strip search was admissible and supported the trafficking conviction (paras 8-9, 16).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for disorderly conduct?
- Was the Defendant's arrest for disorderly conduct lawful, and did it provide a valid basis for the subsequent strip search?
- Should the evidence obtained during the strip search be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest?
Disposition
- The conviction for disorderly conduct was reversed, and the charge was ordered dismissed (para 20).
- The conviction for trafficking a controlled substance was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to suppress the evidence obtained during the strip search (para 20).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Bosson and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Disorderly Conduct Conviction: The court found insufficient evidence to support the disorderly conduct conviction. The Defendant's profane statements, directed at a police officer, did not constitute "fighting words" likely to incite violence or disturb the peace. The court emphasized that police officers are expected to have a higher tolerance for offensive language due to their training. Additionally, there was no evidence that the Defendant's statements provoked or disturbed the workmen or neighbors (paras 8-15).
Legality of Arrest and Suppression of Evidence: The court held that the Defendant's arrest for disorderly conduct was unlawful because it lacked probable cause. The arresting officer could not reasonably conclude that the Defendant's conduct met the statutory definition of disorderly conduct. Consequently, the strip search conducted after the illegal arrest was invalid, and the evidence obtained during the search was inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (paras 16-19).
Conclusion: The court reversed both convictions, dismissed the disorderly conduct charge, and remanded the trafficking charge with instructions to suppress the evidence obtained during the strip search (para 20).