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 stopped by a police officer for failing to stop at a stop sign while riding a bicycle. During the stop, the officer conducted a pat-down search for weapons with the Defendant's consent, which led to the discovery of drugs and drug paraphernalia. The Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: The court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding the search and seizure to be illegal (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress because the pat-down was lawful due to reasonable suspicion and consent from the Defendant. Alternatively, argued that the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine (para 5).
• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that the search violated both the New Mexico Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, leading to the motion to suppress all controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and other fruits of the illegal search or seizure (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the pat-down search of the Defendant was unlawful and thus the evidence obtained should be suppressed.
• Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine applies, allowing the evidence to be admissible despite the initial illegality of the search.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling to grant the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia with Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, held that:
  The district court correctly applied the law and there was substantial evidence supporting its ruling that the search and seizure were illegal. The officer did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the pat-down, making the search a violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights (paras 7-14).
  The district court did not err in rejecting the State's argument regarding the inevitable discovery doctrine. The State failed to prove that the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means independent of the illegal search (paras 16-19).