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 a traffic stop where the defendant, Tina Ferrell, was questioned regarding drugs after her boyfriend, Tyler Coslin, was initially stopped for driving at night without headlights. The officers expanded the scope of the stop to question Ferrell about drugs without reasonable suspicion, leading to her motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop and pursuant to the warrant obtained as a result of the evidence discovered during the stop.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence obtained during the traffic stop and subsequent search warrant should not be suppressed.
• Defendant-Appellee (Tina Ferrell): Argued that the officers improperly expanded the scope of the traffic stop to question her about drugs without reasonable suspicion, thus violating her constitutional rights and warranting the suppression of the evidence obtained.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop to question the defendant about illegal drugs.
• Whether the evidence obtained during the traffic stop and pursuant to the warrant obtained as a result of the evidence discovered during the stop should be suppressed due to a lack of reasonable suspicion.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting Defendant Tina Ferrell’s motion to suppress was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, JUDGE (JAMES J. WECHSLER, JUDGE, MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, JUDGE concurring):
  The court found that the officers did not have a specific and individualized reasonable suspicion that Ferrell was engaged in illegal drug activity, which is required to justify the expansion of the scope of a traffic stop for questioning about such activity. The court noted that the mere presence of Ferrell in the car, her relationship with Coslin, and their plans to stay at a motel, without more, did not constitute reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity on her part. The court also found that the inconsistencies in the stories about their relationship provided by Coslin and Ferrell were not necessarily indicative of illegal activity. The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion must be based on specific evidence pointing to the defendant’s own possible criminal activity, not merely proximity to another person’s criminal activity. The court concluded that the facts known to Officer Baker did not provide the particularized and objective indicia of Ferrell’s own criminal activity needed to support a reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the traffic stop to question her about illegal drugs.