State v. Garcia

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the defendant was seized under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution when an officer stopped near him, illuminated him, and ordered him to stop. Because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the resulting seizure was unreasonable, and the cocaine and marijuana were fruits of that seizure subject to suppression. The court reversed the defendant's convictions.

Holdings

1. Defendant's Article II, Section 10 claim was properly before the Supreme Court because he invoked the state constitutional protection and provided the factual basis for the suppression issue; he was not required to anticipate the Court of Appeals' alternative seizure analysis.
2. Under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, a person is seized when, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. New Mexico therefore rejects the requirement under California v. Hodari D. that a suspect submit to an assertion of police authority before a seizure occurs.
3. Defendant was seized under Article II, Section 10 when the officer stopped his marked patrol car near Defendant, shone a spotlight on him, and told, ordered, or yelled at him to stop.
4. The officer lacked reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant at the inception of the encounter.
5. The cocaine and marijuana were fruits of the unlawful seizure and must be suppressed under Article II, Section 10.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant preserved his claim that the seizure violated Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
2. Whether a seizure under Article II, Section 10 occurs when, considering the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, notwithstanding the suspect's failure to submit to an officer's assertion of authority.
3. Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant when he stopped his patrol car near Defendant, shone a spotlight on him, and ordered him to stop.
4. Whether the cocaine and marijuana were fruits of the unlawful seizure and therefore subject to suppression.

Disposition

reversed