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 June 17, 2015, in Farmington, New Mexico, a park ranger reported a suspicious vehicle in a city park parking lot after hours. A police officer, without using emergency signals, approached the vehicle on foot. As the driver attempted to leave, the officer tapped on the window, leading to the driver stopping. Upon interaction, the officer detected alcohol, resulting in the driver's arrest for DWI and driving on a revoked license. The driver contested the legality of the stop, arguing it was an illegal seizure (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge: Denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from what the defendant contended was an illegal seizure.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that stopping the vehicle in response to the police officer's tap on the window constituted an illegal seizure without reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the initial contact between the police officer and the defendant was consensual and did not constitute a seizure, thus the evidence obtained should not be suppressed (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant was illegally seized when she stopped her vehicle in response to a police officer's tap on the window, necessitating suppression of the evidence obtained thereafter.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that the police officer’s initial contact was consensual and did not constitute a seizure (para 23).

Reasons

• Per GALLEGOS, Judge Pro Tempore, with VANZI, Chief Judge, and VARGAS, Judge, concurring:
  The court determined that the police officer's tap on the defendant's car window, without more, constituted a consensual encounter rather than a seizure. This conclusion was based on the absence of a show of authority that would suggest the defendant was not free to leave (paras 4, 13-22).
  The court applied the "free-to-leave" test from United States v. Mendenhall and State v. Garcia, evaluating the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter. It found that the officer's actions—approaching the vehicle on foot and tapping on the window without using emergency lights or making any verbal commands—did not communicate to the defendant that compliance was compelled (paras 7-9, 17-18).
  The court distinguished this case from a typical traffic stop, noting that the officer's approach on foot and the lack of typical displays of authority associated with traffic stops indicated that the encounter was more akin to an interaction with a pedestrian or the occupant of a parked car (paras 18-19).
  The court also addressed the defendant's argument regarding NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1(C), clarifying that the statute's requirements did not apply since the officer was not in his vehicle and did not use any signals to stop the defendant's vehicle (para 20).
  Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's minimally intrusive action of tapping on the window did not constitute a show of authority that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave, thus no seizure occurred at the point the defendant stopped and rolled down her window (para 22).