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

• On February 8, 2008, DEA agents boarded a train in Albuquerque to intercept drugs, focusing on passengers who fit certain profiles, such as purchasing tickets with cash close to the departure date. The Defendant, having bought a ticket under such conditions and without providing a contact number, was approached by Agent Perry. After identifying himself, Perry asked to see the Defendant's ticket and ID, leading to the Defendant's cabin. Without informing the Defendant of his right to refuse cooperation, Perry inquired about contraband and requested to search the Defendant's luggage, where approximately two pounds of marijuana were discovered.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the encounter between the DEA agent and the Defendant was consensual, implying no seizure occurred and thus the evidence should not be suppressed.
• Defendant-Appellee (Carl Van Walton): Contended that the encounter was not consensual, asserting that the evidence found during the search of his luggage should be suppressed due to the involuntary nature of his consent and the lack of reasonable suspicion for the search.

Legal Issues

• Whether the encounter between the DEA agent and the Defendant was consensual, thereby not constituting a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• Whether the Defendant's consent to search his luggage was voluntary and unambiguous.

Disposition

• The district court's order to suppress the evidence found in the search of the Defendant's luggage was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring):
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's determination that the encounter between Agent Perry and the Defendant was not consensual. The court highlighted factors such as Agent Perry's introduction as a police officer, the request for documents, and the pursuit to the Defendant's cabin without informing him of his right to refuse cooperation. These actions, combined with the Defendant's testimony of feeling compelled to comply, led to the conclusion that a reasonable person in the Defendant's position would not have felt free to leave. The court thus affirmed the district court's decision without needing to address the specificity and voluntariness of the Defendant's consent to search his luggage, as the initial encounter was deemed a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.