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 case involves the Defendant who was stopped by Officer John Clay at approximately 11:00 p.m. at a Roswell intersection due to an expired registration tag. Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Clay detected a strong odor of marijuana. The Defendant was asked to exit the vehicle and during questioning, repeatedly placed his hands in his jacket pockets despite being asked to remove them. This behavior, combined with the circumstances of being alone, the late hour, the presence of another passenger, and the strong marijuana odor, led Officer Clay to conduct a patdown search on the Defendant.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the officer lacked specific and articulable suspicion to justify the patdown search.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had specific and articulable suspicion to justify the patdown search of the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the convictions for distribution of marijuana and possession of a controlled substance.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring): The court found that the totality of the circumstances justified the patdown search conducted by Officer Clay. The Defendant's repeated refusal to keep his hands out of his jacket pockets, especially when combined with the late hour, the officer being alone, the presence of another passenger, and the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, created a reasonable concern for officer safety. This concern for safety was deemed more significant than the circumstances in the referenced case of Vandenberg, where the defendant's nervous behavior alone was considered. The court also addressed the Defendant's argument regarding the lack of evidence that the officer knew the Defendant to discern if his behavior was out of the ordinary, stating such evidence was unnecessary for determining the objective reasonableness of the officer's actions. Additionally, the court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to raise an issue under the state constitution, noting that the issue was not properly preserved for appeal as it was not adequately argued at the trial level.