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

• In the early hours of July 20, 2018, two uniformed police officers in a marked vehicle were patrolling in Farmington, New Mexico, when they heard a whistle. Believing someone was seeking assistance, they approached a closed laundromat's parking lot where they encountered the Defendant sitting on a parking stop. Upon exiting their vehicle, the officers observed the Defendant place something in his shoe. The Defendant, upon being questioned if he was trying to flag down the officers, denied doing so and subsequently took a "bladed fighting stance" while concealing an object behind his back. This object was later identified as a river rock. The Defendant's actions led to a physical restraint by the officers (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated as he was seized by the police officers without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. He contended that the seizure occurred without reasonable suspicion at the initial contact outside the laundromat and that any evidence discovered as a result of this illegal seizure should be suppressed (paras 2, 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the initial contact with the Defendant was consensual, based on the Defendant's action of whistling, which they interpreted as a signal for assistance. The State argued that the officers developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity during the consensual part of the encounter, justifying the subsequent seizure (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was seized by the police officers without reasonable suspicion, in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• At what point the seizure of the Defendant occurred and whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge J. MILES HANISEE, with Judges JACQUELINE R. MEDINA and ZACHARY A. IVES concurring, held that the initial encounter between the officers and the Defendant was consensual. The seizure was determined to have occurred when Officer Domenici ordered the Defendant to show his hands and sit down, which was justified by the Defendant's threatening behavior and the circumstances suggesting he might be idling, loitering, or prowling. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings based on Officer Domenici's testimony. It was concluded that the officers had developed a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by the time the Defendant was ordered to sit down, making the seizure lawful under both the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution (paras 3-10).