Summary
The New Mexico Court of Appeals reviews the district court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his backpack. The court declines to apply the 'right for any reason' doctrine to the State's first-on-appeal standing arguments regarding ownership and abandonment, as they are fact-dependent. Under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, the court holds that the warrantless inventory search was unreasonable and violates state constitutional protections. The order denying suppression is reversed and the case is remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals could affirm the suppression ruling under the State's newly raised theories that Defendant lacked standing because he denied owning or had abandoned the backpack.
- Whether the warrantless search of Defendant's closed backpack was a reasonable inventory search under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
Holdings
- The right-for-any-reason doctrine could not be used to affirm the suppression ruling based on the State's first-time-on-appeal arguments that Defendant lacked standing because of disputed ownership or abandonment. Those arguments were fact-dependent, required factual development, and Defendant had no opportunity to present responsive evidence in the district court.
- The warrantless search of Defendant's zipped-closed backpack was unreasonable and invalid under Article II, Section 10 because the State failed to establish that opening the backpack was reasonably necessary to protect property, protect police from liability, or protect police from physical danger.
Key quotations
“The doctrine permits affirmance on a basis not relied upon by the district court “if the result reached by the district court ‘was right for any reason, as long as the arguments in favor of affirmance are not fact based such that it would be unfair to entertain them for the first time on appeal without notice to the appellant.’”” (¶ 8)
“We hold, under Article II, Section 10, that the State did not justify the warrantless search by establishing that any government interest outweighed Defendant’s privacy interest in the contents of his closed backpack.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Police arrested Von Marquez at an apartment complex pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant. An officer later found a zipped backpack in a child's bedroom in the apartment, and the tenant said it did not belong to her or her children and guessed that it belonged to Marquez. Police searched the backpack while Marquez was in a patrol vehicle and found suspected fentanyl pills and drug paraphernalia. The State later charged Marquez with trafficking by possession with intent to distribute, and the district court upheld the search as a valid inventory search.
Procedural history
Police searched Defendant's zipped backpack after arresting him and found suspected fentanyl pills and drug paraphernalia. The district court denied Defendant's suppression motion, concluding that the backpack was properly seized and searched as an inventory search. Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple charges and appealed the suppression ruling. The Court of Appeals declined to affirm on the State's unpreserved, fact-dependent standing theories, held that the search violated Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, reversed, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including proceedings consistent with reversal of the order denying the motion to suppress.