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

• Officers were dispatched to investigate a domestic violence incident between the Defendant and his live-in girlfriend in a parking lot. Both parties had left the scene by the time officers arrived, and were located separately at different locations. The Defendant was found at a convenience store, where he was searched by officers, leading to the discovery of what appeared to be powdered cocaine in his pocket. The Defendant was then arrested for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, rather than for the domestic battery charge (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the pat-down search violated the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, as the officer did not have grounds to conduct a protective pat-down for weapons and exceeded the scope of any protective pat-down by removing an object that was clearly not a weapon. Also contended that the officers did not have grounds to conduct a search incident to a warrantless arrest because the Defendant was not "at the scene" of the domestic disturbance when arrested (para 6).
• Appellee: Justified the officers' conduct by stating they were investigating a claim of domestic violence and the Defendant's refusal to remove his hands from his pockets was suspicious. Further argued that the officers conducted a de facto arrest for domestic violence when they placed the Defendant in handcuffs outside the convenience store, and that they were statutorily authorized to arrest the Defendant at that time (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the pat-down search and the removal of evidence from the Defendant's pocket were justified under the exceptions to the warrant requirement.
• Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine justified the warrantless search of the Defendant's person.
• Whether the officers were statutorily authorized to arrest the Defendant for misdemeanor domestic battery without a warrant, given that the arrest did not occur at the scene of the domestic disturbance (paras 9, 17).

Disposition

• The court reversed the district court’s order denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded the case (para 27).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, and Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Michael E. Vigil concurring, found that the removal of evidence from the Defendant's pocket exceeded the scope of a legal pat-down search for weapons. The court also determined that the officers were not statutorily authorized to arrest the Defendant for misdemeanor domestic battery without a warrant because the arrest did not occur at the scene of the domestic disturbance. The court concluded that the State failed to establish that the object removed from the Defendant's pocket was of such a size and density to reasonably be considered a weapon, thus the search exceeded the proper scope of a pat-down search for weapons. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred in its broad interpretation of the "at the scene" language in the statute authorizing warrantless arrests for domestic battery, leading to the conclusion that the evidence would not have been inevitably discovered during a search incident to a legal arrest for misdemeanor domestic battery (paras 10-26).