AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• During a traffic stop for an expired registration at approximately 3:30 a.m. on December 8, 2010, Deputy Hessinger of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department observed small empty plastic baggies in the vehicle occupied by the Defendant and his adult son. Upon further investigation, a larger baggie suspected to contain methamphetamine was seen, leading to the Defendant being asked to exit the vehicle and subjected to a frisk. This frisk resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine and a glass pipe. The Defendant was subsequently indicted on charges related to trafficking methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the pat down, which led to the discovery of methamphetamine and a glass pipe, was unconstitutional (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the frisk was justified under the circumstances, emphasizing the objective facts surrounding the incident (para 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Terry frisk of the Defendant was permissible under the circumstances (para 1).
• Whether the charges should have been dismissed due to the combining of the contents of two baggies into one (para 18).
• Whether it was error to give an instruction on simple possession as a lesser included offense (para 21).

Disposition

• The district court's order denying the Defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed (para 17).
• The judgment and sentence of the district court were affirmed (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that the Terry frisk was permissible based on the objective standard that a reasonable, well-trained officer would fear for his safety under the circumstances. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's decision, including the time of the stop, the presence of suspected drug paraphernalia, and the inherent risks associated with traffic stops and drug trafficking. The Court also addressed the Defendant's remaining arguments, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in the handling of evidence or error in jury instruction regarding simple possession as a lesser included offense (paras 10-21).