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

• In July 2020, a police sergeant responded to a dispatch about a fight in progress and an all-day party on the same street. Upon arrival, without activating lights or sirens and parking his car out of sight, the sergeant approached a group of individuals in the street. As he attempted to interact with the group, a physical altercation ensued, resulting in the sergeant being restrained by several individuals, including the Defendant, James Morgan. This altercation led to charges against Morgan, including aggravated battery of a peace officer (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: The court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the altercation and dismissed the criminal complaint with prejudice.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the sergeant had reasonable suspicion to believe Morgan was involved in criminal activity or violating city ordinances. Alternatively, argued that Morgan's actions post-seizure constituted a "new crime," attenuating any illegality of the initial seizure (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Morgan): Asserted he was unlawfully seized as the sergeant lacked reasonable suspicion, and all evidence resulting from the altercation should be suppressed (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the sergeant had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity at the time of the seizure.
• If the sergeant lacked reasonable suspicion, whether Defendant’s actions following the seizure amounted to “new crimes” (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's orders granting the motion to suppress and dismissing the criminal complaint. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the order of dismissal and to reinstate the case (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Henderson, concluded that Morgan's actions following the seizure constituted "new crimes," which sufficiently attenuated the illegality of the initial seizure, making suppression of evidence inappropriate. The court applied a three-factor attenuation test, considering the time lapse between the illegality and the acquisition of evidence, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. Despite acknowledging the first factor favored suppression due to the brief time lapse, the court found the subsequent restraint of the sergeant by Morgan and others as an intervening circumstance that purged the taint of the initial illegality. The court also disagreed with the assertion that the sergeant's approach was deliberately aggressive to provoke a violent encounter, finding no evidence of pretextual or flagrant misconduct. Thus, the court held that the evidence of Morgan's battery on a police officer, false imprisonment, and criminal damage to property charges were admissible, reversing the district court's suppression order (paras 7-24).