State v. Light

Decision Date23 May 2013
Docket NumberNo. 30,741.,30,741.
Citation306 P.3d 534
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Misty LIGHT, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Gary K. King, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM, M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

Gorence & Oliveros, P.C., Robert J. Gorence, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

WECHSLER, Judge.

{1} The State appeals the district court's order granting Defendant Misty Light's motion to suppress. We find no error. The search warrant was impermissibly broad in allowing officers to search “all persons” located on the premises when the only evidence tying Defendant to any crime was her presence at an event that was open to the public where illegal activity was taking place. Finally, the officers were not justified in searching Defendant's purse due to the lack of evidence tying Defendant to the criminal activity taking place on the premises and because the officers knew the purse belonged to Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the order suppressing the evidence found in Defendant's purse and her subsequent statements to the officers.

BACKGROUND

{2} We summarize the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the district court's ruling. See State v. Flores, 2008–NMCA–074, ¶ 2, 144 N.M. 217, 185 P.3d 1067. Initially, we note that the parties stipulated to certain facts based on evidence presented at the suppression hearings in the companion case of State v. Bradley Light, CR–20090215. The district court incorporated those facts into its findings in this matter, and the testimony from those hearings is part of the record in this case.

{3} Police had been conducting an investigation of Bradley Light (Light), the owner of the Cavern Theater (the theater), for alleged drug trafficking. The officers had information that Light was selling and allowing the use of illegal drugs in the theater. They also had information that Light was hosting circuit or “rave” parties at the theater. At these parties, drugs, primarily ecstasy and marijuana, were being sold and consumed, and underage persons were consuming alcohol.

{4} Officer Allen Sanchez, an officer with the Carlsbad Police Department assigned as an agent to the Pecos Valley Drug Task Force, learned that Light would be hosting a rave party at the theater on May 9, 2009. Sanchez arranged for Arturo Holguin, a law enforcement officer working with the Otero County Narcotics Enforcement Unit, to attend the party and report back to Sanchez as to what transpired.

{5} Holguin went inside the theater at about 10:15 p.m.; Sanchez parked nearby and observed people entering and leaving the theater between 10:15 p.m. and midnight. At the door of the theater, Holguin was asked for identification to show he was over twenty-one, and he was searched for weapons before being allowed to enter. He was not asked to show an invitation or any other documentation to gain entry.

{6} While inside the theater, Holguin observed, among other things, what appeared to be underage people drinking alcohol, people smoking marijuana in the “cry room,” and people taking pills. About twenty-five percent of the occupants appeared to be juveniles under the age of eighteen. Holguin approached a male juvenile and two female juveniles, who told him they were taking ecstasy; another person spoke with the male juvenile, and the male juvenile, in turn, informed Holguin that he would have ecstasy for sale later in the night. Holguin was later able to purchase ecstasy from another male, he saw a male selling ecstasy to others, and he was told that marijuana and more ecstasy would be for sale later. Holguin purchased cocaine from a male standing in the lobby.

{7} Holguin met Light when Holguin entered the theater. Later, Light was passing around syringes containing a red jello-like substance that Holguin heard Light confirm were “jello shots.” Holguin knew by training or experience that a jello shot is a mixture of some sort of alcohol and jello.

{8} Someone told Holguin that Light called ecstasy party favors.” Holguin asked Light for party favors, but Light told him that he was having other people pass them out, although Light later gave Holguin five pills that Holguin knew to be ecstasy.

{9} Throughout his time in the theater, Holguin reported his observations by text messages to Sanchez, who remained waiting outside. Other than identifying Light and three other males by name, Holguin gave no description of any of the people he observed except to classify them as male or female and as juvenile.

{10} Around midnight, Sanchez decided that he had probable cause for a warrant to search the theater, and he left the parking lot to meet with agents from the Carlsbad Police Department and the Eddy County Sheriff's Department to brief them on the situation. Sanchez sought permission to call out the Carlsbad Police Department Special Response Team (SRT), and he requested that officers from the Eddy County Sheriff's Department seek permission to use that Department's Tactical Response Team (TRT).

{11} Once the SRT and TRT members arrived, Sanchez briefed the officers as to what Holguin had told him, and he told the officers that they were to enter the theater to secure the building, but they were not to search any person or vehicle until he returnedwith a warrant. At some point between midnight and 1:00 a.m. on May 10, 2009, approximately fifteen officers secured the theater and held all the occupants, approximately seventy-five to one hundred people, for the next two-and-a-half hours waiting for Sanchez to return with the search warrant. The officers saw drugs on the floor, but they made no effort to collect them, and Sanchez received no information as to what transpired once the SRT and TRT agents entered the building.

{12} The officers ensured that all the occupants remained seated and did not allow anyone to leave until Sanchez arrived with the search warrant about 2:40 a.m. The district court erroneously found that the warrant was executed at 3:30 a.m., but this error is harmless because it had no impact on the district court's conclusions of law. See State v. Fernandez, 117 N.M. 673, 676, 875 P.2d 1104, 1107 (Ct.App.1994) (“In the absence of prejudice, there is no reversible error.”).

{13} The search warrant authorized a search of Light, his residence, the theater, any vehicles found on those properties, and [a]ny persons found on the properties listed above.” It authorized officers to seize [e]cstacy pills in any shape, form, or size[, and c]ocaine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia [and p]lastic syringes without needles which contained a red jello type substance.”

{14} In executing the warrant, the officers lined all the occupants into two rows and searched each person individually along with any property in their possession. Occupants were then allowed to leave if no contraband was found.

{15} Defendant was present in the front of the theater when the officers arrived to secure the premises. She was searched at approximately 4:05 a.m. There was no testimony that officers found any evidence of illegal drugs or other contraband on Defendant's person, and there was nothing to suggest that Defendant appeared intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.

{16} Defendant sought to leave, and she approached Officer Daniel Vasquez, one of the officers who had helped to secure the perimeter when the officers initially entered the theater. Defendant told Vasquez that she needed her purse and jacket, which were stored in the theater's storage room. Vasquez told Defendant that these items would have to be searched before she could leave with them, and Defendant acquiesced. The parties stipulate that Defendant did not consent to the search of her person or property.

{17} Inside Defendant's purse, Vasquez found a small metal container containing methamphetamine. Vasquez testified that before he opened the purse and container, he had no particularized suspicion that the purse contained contraband, that the purse had no odors and, after opening it, that he saw no obvious evidence of contraband or observed anything suspicious about the metal container.

{18} Defendant was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine and moved to suppress the evidence. SeeNMSA 1978, § 30–31–23(D) (2011). After considering the State's response and conducting a hearing, the district court entered conclusions that: (1) notwithstanding the search warrant's authorization to search “all persons,” the State was required to show probable cause based on a particularized suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity or possessed contraband, and the State failed to do so; (2) the State failed to justify detaining Defendant for approximately two-and-a-half to three hours while Sanchez obtained the warrant and while the officers executed the warrant; and (3) the search of Defendant's purse was not covered by the search warrant, and the State failed to present probable cause based on particularized suspicion to search Defendant's purse. The district court then granted Defendant's motion to suppress, stating that: (1) the detention was unlawful such that any subsequent search was also unlawful; (2) even if the detention was reasonable, the State failed to show particularized suspicion that Defendant was engaged in any criminal activity, and thus the search of her person and property were unlawful; and (3) Vasquez knew the purse belonged to Defendant and was not part of the theater's property and, therefore, the search of the purse was not authorized by the warrant, and the State failed to show particularized suspicion justifying the search. The State appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{19} We review the order granting Defendant's motion to suppress as a mixed question of fact and law. See State v. Williams, 2011–NMSC–026, ¶ 8, 149 N.M. 729, 255 P.3d 307. We determine whether the law was correctly applied to the facts and view “the facts in the light...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 5 Enero 2018
    ...activities in the warrant. Id. at 1244 ; see also State v. Wills , 524 N.W.2d 507, 510 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994) ; State v. Light , 306 P.3d 534, 542 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013).Brown does not land on any particular test for Fourth Amendment purposes, but asserts the search in this case fails under an......
  • State v. Sabeerin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 11 Agosto 2014
    ...“things to be seized.” “The purpose of the particularity requirement is to prevent general searches.” State v. Light, 2013–NMCA–075, ¶ 22, 306 P.3d 534 ; see also Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402, 404 (10th Cir.1985) (stating that “[t]he particularity requirement ensures that a search is co......
  • Ex parte Powers
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 2022
    ...may contain the object of a premises warrant unless they are put on notice that the item belongs to a non-resident."); State v. Light, 306 P.3d 534, 541 (2013) ("Defendant encourages us to adopt the 'notice' approach that prohibits officers from searching the personal property of visitors o......
  • State v. Mora
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 25 Abril 2016
    ...decision; we also review the constitutional question of the reasonableness of a seizure de novo. State v. Light, 2013-NMCA-075, ¶ 19, 306 P.3d 534.B. The State Did Not Raise Reasonable Suspicion for an Investigatory Seizure{4} Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT