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 law enforcement officer stopped the Defendant's vehicle on a roadway known for drug trafficking. The officer, trained in drug investigations and accompanied by a K-9 partner, conducted the stop under the pretext of a traffic violation. The officer questioned the Defendant, who was cooperative, and obtained consent to search the vehicle. The officer admitted that most individuals consent to searches and that he would have deployed the K-9 even without consent. Evidence obtained during the stop led to charges unrelated to the initial traffic violation.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding that the traffic stop was pretextual and unrelated to the Defendant's driving.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the stop was lawful and that the Defendant's consent to additional questioning and the vehicle search was voluntary and untainted by the initial stop. The State also contended that the Court of Appeals should not rely on the precedent set in State v. Ochoa because the New Mexico Supreme Court had granted certiorari in that case, which the State claimed precluded reliance on it.
- Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the stop was pretextual, as the officer's motive was unrelated to the Defendant's driving, and that the evidence obtained during the stop was inadmissible under State v. Ochoa.
Legal Issues
- Was the traffic stop pretextual and therefore unlawful under State v. Ochoa?
- Should the Court of Appeals rely on State v. Ochoa despite the New Mexico Supreme Court granting certiorari in that case?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals found that the district court's determination that the stop was pretextual was supported by substantial evidence. The officer's motive for the stop was unrelated to the Defendant's driving, as the officer admitted to targeting the area for drug investigations and intended to deploy the K-9 regardless of consent. The Court relied on State v. Ochoa, which held that pretextual stops are unlawful, and rejected the State's argument that the granting of certiorari in Ochoa precluded reliance on it. The Court noted that Ochoa had not been overruled or reversed and declined to certify the case or hold it in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's review of Ochoa.