This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped at a border patrol immigration checkpoint in Sierra County, New Mexico, where officers were checking for illegal aliens. Prior to reaching the checkpoint, the Defendant stopped his truck, a behavior known as a "stop short," which raised suspicion. At the checkpoint, the Defendant appeared nervous, and his passenger struggled to produce identification. The truck was moved to a secondary inspection area, where an officer noticed a white diaper bag wedged under the truck's undercarriage. Upon removing and opening the bag, the officer discovered marijuana (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Trial court: Convicted the Defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the warrantless search and seizure of the diaper bag violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that the officer lacked probable cause or any legal basis to remove and search the bag (paras 1, 6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the search and seizure were lawful under the "automobile exception" and "plain view" doctrines, and that the officer's actions were justified based on the circumstances (paras 9-10).
Legal Issues
- Did the officer have probable cause or legal justification to seize and search the diaper bag without a warrant?
- Was the search and seizure of the diaper bag lawful under the "automobile exception" or "plain view" doctrines?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction and the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress (para 18).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Alarid C.J. concurring):
The Court found that the officer's actions exceeded the permissible limits of a warrantless search and seizure. While the officer was lawfully entitled to observe the underside of the truck, the removal and subsequent search of the diaper bag constituted an unreasonable seizure. The Court reasoned as follows:
Automobile Exception: The automobile exception requires probable cause that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime and that the vehicle itself is the target of suspicion. Here, the officer specifically targeted the diaper bag, not the vehicle, and lacked probable cause to believe the bag contained contraband at the time of seizure (paras 10-11).
Plain View Doctrine: For the plain view doctrine to apply, the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent, and the officer must have probable cause to seize the item. The diaper bag's location and appearance did not provide probable cause or make its incriminating nature immediately apparent. The officer's curiosity alone was insufficient to justify the seizure (paras 12-14).
Plain Touch Exception: The officer's touching of the diaper bag did not establish probable cause, as the officer testified that he had no opinion about the bag's contents until after detecting the smell of marijuana, which occurred post-seizure. Thus, the plain touch exception was inapplicable (para 16).
Unlawful Seizure: The seizure of the diaper bag was unreasonable, and the subsequent discovery of marijuana was tainted by the initial illegality. The evidence obtained from the canine sniff was also inadmissible as it was derived from the unlawful seizure (paras 17-18).
Per Hartz J., dissenting:
Hartz J. dissented, arguing that the officer had probable cause to seize and search the diaper bag upon observing it wedged under the truck. The unusual location of the bag, combined with the Defendant's suspicious behavior (e.g., the "stop short" and nervous demeanor), provided sufficient grounds for the officer to believe the bag contained contraband. Hartz J. emphasized that common sense and the totality of the circumstances supported the lawfulness of the seizure and search (paras 20-26).