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

• The defendant was walking home from work at night when a police officer, as part of a routine practice to create a database of individuals out at night, stopped him to ask for his name and date of birth. The officer had no prior suspicion or reason to believe the defendant was involved in any criminal activity. After the interaction, the officer checked for warrants and discovered an outstanding warrant for the defendant, leading to his arrest and the discovery of methamphetamine on his person (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County: Denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search incident to arrest, concluding the encounter was consensual and not a seizure.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the seizure was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico State Constitution, requiring suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of the seizure (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the encounter was consensual, not a seizure, and even if it was a seizure, the evidence obtained should not be suppressed under the attenuation doctrine (paras 17, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer's actions of stopping the defendant to ask for his name and date of birth constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• Whether the evidence derived from any seizure must be suppressed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico reversed the district court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the defendant's unlawful seizure and remanded to the district court to permit the defendant to withdraw his conditional plea (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Julie J. Vargas writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Kristina Bogardus and Shammara H. Henderson, found that the defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the officer stopped him and asked him questions. This conclusion was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the officer's conduct, the time of night, and the defendant's isolation. The Court also determined that the evidence obtained as a result of this seizure was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, as the seizure was not sufficiently attenuated by the discovery of a preexisting arrest warrant. The Court applied the three-factor test from Brown v. Illinois to conclude that the evidence must be excluded, emphasizing the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct in this case (paras 8-28).