State v. Hermosillo
| Decision Date | 14 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | 32,891.,No. 34,863.,34,863. |
| Citation | 336 P.3d 446 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Rene HERMOSILLO, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Becca Salwin, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.
Templeman & Crutchfield, P.C., C. Barry Crutchfield, Lovington, NM, for Appellant.
{1} Defendant, a probationer, pled no contest to trafficking controlled substances and delivery or manufacture of drug paraphernalia, reserving the right to appeal from the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. In this opinion, we determine whether Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was not given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444–45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), while handcuffed and questioned in his home by his probation officer during a random home visit. We hold that, under the specific facts of this case, Defendant was not “in custody” for Fifth Amendment purposes and, therefore, no Miranda warnings were required. We affirm the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress.
{2} In conducting our review, “we bear in mind that there is a distinction between factual determinations which are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review and application of law to the facts, which is subject to de novo review.” State v. Munoz, 1998–NMSC–048, ¶ 39, 126 N.M. 535, 972 P.2d 847 (alteration, internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State v. Nieto, 2000–NMSC–031, ¶ 19, 129 N.M. 688, 12 P.3d 442 (). In other words, “[w]e determine whether the law was correctly applied to the facts, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party[,] ... indulg[ing] in all reasonable inferences in support of the [trial] court's ruling and disregard[ing] all evidence and inferences to the contrary.” State v. Bravo, 2006–NMCA–019, ¶ 5, 139 N.M. 93, 128 P.3d 1070.
{3} Although Defendant challenges the district court's conclusions, he does not argue that the district court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. In accordance with the standard of review, we accept the district court's findings, as follows, and view them in the light most favorable to the State.
{4} Defendant was on supervised probation after pleading no contest to possession of a controlled substance (felony—narcotic drug), resisting, evading or obstructing an officer (refusal to stop), and reckless driving in Lea County District Court Cause No. D–506–CR–2012–086. Defendant's supervising probation officer went over the probation order with Defendant, who acknowledged that he read and understood it, initialing each paragraph. The district court judge signed the probation order, and it was filed in the district court. Under its terms, among other things, Defendant was required: (1) to report to his probation officer as often as required; to submit completed and truthful reports; and to be truthful, accurate, and prompt in all communications with his probation officer; (2) not to associate with any persons having a criminal record or other probationers and parolees; and (3) to permit his probation officer to visit him at home or his place of employment at any time; and to permit a warrantless search of his person, automobile, and residence, if the probation officer has reasonable cause to believe the search would produce evidence of a probation violation. In addition, as part of the probation intake process, Defendant entered into a “rules for home visits” agreement, agreeing among other things: (1) to promptly answer the door and invite the officers in; and (2) to be courteous and cooperative with the officers.
{5} On the evening of October 18, 2012, the probation officer was conducting home visits of various probationers under his supervision. Defendant's home was not originally on the list but was added because Defendant had recently been testing positive for drugs. The probation officer routinely has law enforcement officers accompany him on evening/night home visits, and on this evening he was accompanied by a drug task force officer.
{6} The probation officer and drug task force officer went to Defendant's front door and knocked. The probation officer saw Defendant look out a window and observe the probation officer, then disappear. The probation officer heard activity in the house, and he became suspicious when Defendant did not promptly answer the door and decided he would search Defendant's residence for evidence of a probation violation. The probation officer continued to knock and announce his presence, and after a while Defendant's wife answered the door and let the officers inside. The probation officer found that Defendant had gone into a bathroom and locked the door. When he knocked on the bathroom door and announced his presence, Defendant refused to come out, saying he was going to the bathroom. During a quick and cursory protective sweep, the officers saw a known felon and fellow probationer leaving through the back door. The officers stopped this person who said that he and Defendant had been drinking beer in Defendant's house.
{7} After a while, Defendant came out of the bathroom. Defendant was searched, and $580 cash was found on his person. The probation officer became suspicious because Defendant had previously reported his income was less than that amount. “As a result of what had transpired and the uncertainty of the situation, Defendant was immediately handcuffed for officer safety reasons.” Defendant was ordered to sit down and remain there, but “was not placed under arrest.” Defendant was not told of his right to remain silent or of his right against self-incrimination pursuant to Miranda.
{8} The probation officer asked the drug task force officer, in Defendant's presence, whether a drug dog was available to search Defendant's residence. Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol with the other probationer. Defendant then asked to talk privately with his probation officer “to explain himself” and led the officer into the laundry room. The probation officer saw empty beer cans in the trash basket, and Defendant again admitted to drinking alcohol with the other probationer. The probation officer told Defendant he intended to search the house and asked Defendant “if there was [anything] in his residence he was not supposed to have.” Defendant responded, saying, “Yeah, can I show you?” Defendant took the probation officer to a cabinet in the “party room” of his house, and said, “it's up there.” The probation officer looked at the area Defendant referred to and observed what appeared to be drugs.
{9} The probation officer notified the drug task force officer of “what [he] had observed[,]” and the drug task force officer contacted another officer to obtain a search warrant. In the course of the search, it was confirmed that the probation officer had observed drugs, and the drugs were seized along with digital scales. Defendant was arrested and charged with trafficking a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.
{10} Defendant moved to suppress all statements he made while handcuffed, and all evidence that was seized as a result of the statements he made while handcuffed, arguing that he was interrogated while in custody without being advised of his Miranda rights. The State responded. After conducting a hearing and entering findings and conclusions, the district court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant entered a conditional plea agreement reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. This appeal followed.
{11} The Fifth Amendment protections provided under Miranda apply only to “custodial interrogation[s].” 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; see State v. Smile, 2009–NMCA–064, ¶ 24, 146 N.M. 525, 212 P.3d 413. In determining whether a defendant is in custody for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, “the court must apply an objective test to resolve the ultimate inquiry: was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest[?]” State v. Wilson, 2007–NMCA–111, ¶ 14, 142 N.M. 737, 169 P.3d 1184 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the Miranda test is an objective one, we do not consider the subjective beliefs of the defendant or the officer about whether the defendant was in custody. Wilson, 2007–NMCA–111 ¶ 14, 142 N.M. 737, 169 P.3d 1184. Rather, we consider “how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If no formal arrest occurred prior to questioning, our appellate courts engage in a fact-specific analysis of the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning took place in order to decide whether the custody requirement is met. See, e.g., Smile, 2009–NMCA–064, ¶ 27, 146 N.M. 525, 212 P.3d 413. The following factors guide our inquiry: “the purpose, place, and length of interrogation[,] ... the extent to which the defendant is confronted with evidence of guilt, the physical surroundings of the interrogation, the duration of the detention, and the degree of pressure applied to the defendant.” Munoz, 1998–NMSC–048, ¶ 40, 126 N.M. 535, 972 P.2d 847 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In determining whether a person is being interrogated, we consider whether the officer's questioning is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response or has that effect. State v. Ponce, 2004–NMCA–137, ¶ 37, 136 N.M. 614, 103 P.3d 54.
{12} We have often noted that “[p]robation is the release by the court without imprisonment of an adult defendant convicted of a crime.”Id. ¶ 8 (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Taylor E.
...psychological intimidation that might overbear his desire to claim the privilege.").{22} In State v. Hermosillo , 2014–NMCA–102, ¶¶ 12–13, 336 P.3d 446, we explained that "probation is an act of clemency with the goal of education and rehabilitation" and that "[a]lthough a probationer does ......
-
State v. Powers
... ... was noncustodial when parolee was questioned in his own home, by his parole officer, in "low-key" and "relaxed" manner for sixty minutes and noting fact police officers were simultaneously conducting a search of parolee's home "did not make the encounter police-dominated"); Hermosillo , 2014NMCA102, 2629, 336 P.3d 446 (holding probationary home visit not transformed 157 A.3d 50 into custodial interrogation although defendant was handcuffed and told to remain seated while officers searched because visit occurred in defendant's home, "a noncustodial setting," defendant had ... ...
-
People v. Coleman
... 37 N.E.3d 360 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, PlaintiffAppellant v. Stephen C. COLEMAN, DefendantAppellee. No. 4140730. Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. July 20, 2015 ... See State v. Hermosillo, 336 P.3d 446 (N.M.Ct.App.2014). The New Mexico court found the defendant was not in custody under the specific facts of that case and, therefore, ... ...
-
State v. Widmer
...Apodaca that Defendant disclose to him whether anything illegal was on Defendant's person. See State v. Hermosillo , 2014-NMCA-102, ¶ 11, 336 P.3d 446 ("In determining whether a person is being interrogated, we consider whether the officer's questioning is reasonably likely to elicit an inc......