State v. Ontiveros
| Decision Date | 20 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-37870 |
| Citation | 508 P.3d 910 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew ONTIVEROS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Benjamin L. Lammons, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Victor E. Sanchez, Assistant Appellate Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
{1} Defendant Andrew Ontiveros appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence recovered from the vehicle he drove at the time of his arrest for driving while his license was revoked. He maintains that the inventory search of the vehicle offended his protections under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We agree and reverse.
{2} Farmington Police Officer Alvin Bencomo observed a moving vehicle with a broken taillight and a cracked front windshield. He conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle, which promptly pulled over at a nearby trailer park. Upon pulling over, Defendant and his passenger (Passenger) exited the vehicle. Following commands from Officer Bencomo, Defendant and Passenger reentered the vehicle. Officer Bencomo then spoke with Defendant, asked him to again exit the vehicle, and requested his driver's license, which Defendant did not have.
{3} Officer Bencomo's investigation revealed that Defendant's driver's license was revoked. Defendant informed Officer Bencomo that the vehicle belonged to his grandmother (Grandmother), who was not at the scene. Officer Bencomo verified that Grandmother was the registered owner, though it is unclear if this verification included her address. Defendant further informed Officer Bencomo that the trailer next to Grandmother's vehicle was Grandmother's home, but Officer Bencomo did not verify this information. Officer Bencomo arrested Defendant for driving with a revoked license. Defendant and Passenger asked Officer Bencomo if the vehicle could be left where it was, or if Grandmother could be contacted. Officer Bencomo responded that towing the vehicle was "just policy." Passenger left the scene on foot after being told he was free to leave by Officer Bencomo.
{4} Officer Bencomo took inventory of the vehicle's contents because he intended to have the vehicle towed. The inventory search revealed a container with marijuana inside, a digital scale with marijuana residue, and a pill bottle that contained methamphetamine and other controlled substances. Defendant was charged with, among other things, possession of a controlled substance, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(A) (2011, amended 2021), and driving while his license was revoked, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-5-39.1 (2013). Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the vehicle, arguing that such evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
{5} The district court held a hearing on the motion. Officer Bencomo testified that Defendant's car was towed "according to [Farmington Police Department] policy" because "[Defendant] was under arrest." A copy of the Farmington Police Department's policy for towing vehicles was admitted as an exhibit. Though Officer Bencomo acknowledged that he was not required by policy to tow the vehicle because the Farmington Police Department policy instructs officers to tow vehicles only when it is "reasonably necessary[,]" he testified that it was his standard practice to have the vehicle towed every time he arrests a driver. Officer Bencomo stated that while he knew the vehicle was parked at the owner's home, he felt towing it was necessary to protect the vehicle.
{6} At the hearing, the district court made an oral finding that the vehicle was in the parking space belonging to Grandmother's trailer. However, it entered a written order denying the motion to suppress, determining that "[i]t was reasonable for law enforcement to tow [the] vehicle despite the vehicle's location on private property[ and] the potential to release the vehicle to ... [G]randmother, ... because a vehicle and it's [sic] contents are items of value that could be damaged or stolen and subject law enforcement to liability." Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and driving on a revoked license, and admitted to violating his conditions of probation in another case because of these charges. Both the guilty pleas and the admissions were conditioned on his right to appeal the district court's ruling on his motion to suppress.
{7} On appeal, Defendant maintains that the warrantless search of the vehicle offended his protections under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The State argues that the search of the vehicle was a valid inventory search. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Defendant. As we explain, because we reverse on Fourth Amendment grounds, we need not analyze Defendant's arguments made pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution.
{8} "Appellate courts review a district court's decision to suppress evidence based on the legality of a search as a mixed question of fact and law." State v. Ryon , 2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 11, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032. We review the district court's factual findings under a substantial evidence standard in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and its conclusions of law de novo. State v. Lopez , 2009-NMCA-127, ¶ 7, 147 N.M. 364, 223 P.3d 361. "Substantial evidence is that which is acceptable to a reasonable mind as adequate support for a conclusion." State v. Sanchez , 2001-NMCA-109, ¶ 14, 131 N.M. 355, 36 P.3d 446.
{9} When parties raise arguments pursuant to both the United States and New Mexico Constitutions, we take the interstitial approach to constitutional interpretation. State v. Gomez , 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 20-21, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1. Using this approach, State v. Tapia , 2018-NMSC-017, ¶ 12, 414 P.3d 332 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where the federal constitution does not offer protection, only then do we turn to the state constitutional claim. Id.
{10} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable. State v. Gutierrez , 2004-NMCA-081, ¶ 6, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18. The burden of proving that a warrantless search was valid is borne by the State and is met by proving that an exception to the warrant requirement applies. State v. Rowell , 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 10, 144 N.M. 371, 188 P.3d 95. "Inventory searches are now a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."1 State v. Davis , 2018-NMSC-001, ¶ 11, 408 P.3d 576 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
{11} Both Defendant and the State rely on Davis for their respective arguments here. We agree with the parties that Davis governs our analysis. In that case, our Supreme Court reaffirmed that a valid inventory search requires that "(1) the police have control or custody of the object of the search; (2) the inventory search is conducted in conformity with established police regulations; and (3) the search is reasonable." Id. ¶ 12. There, a law enforcement officer followed a motorcyclist who the officer knew did not possess a valid driver's license. Id. ¶ 3. The motorcyclist parked in the driveway of his home, removed his backpack, and left it atop a parked car in the motorcyclist's open-air carport. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Upon the motorcyclist's arrest, the officer performed an inventory search of the backpack, which revealed marijuana. Id. ¶ 5.
{12} With regard to the first inventory search requirement, our Supreme Court held that law enforcement had control or custody of the backpack, reasoning that it was "made unsecure by the arrest" because the arrest prevented the motorcyclist "from further controlling" it, regardless of the backpack's location on the motorcyclist's private property. Id. ¶¶ 21-24, 26 ; see also id. ¶ 21 (). As to the second factor, the Court held that the law enforcement policy at issue, i.e., taking inventory of all of the belongings in an arrestee's possession, necessarily included "all of the belongings of an arrestee made unsecure by an arrest[,]" not merely those on the arrestee's person. Id . ¶¶ 28-29. Finally, given the fact-specific inquiry that must govern an inventory search analysis, the Court concluded that the search was reasonable in light of law enforcement's concern that the backpack may contain items of value that should be secured. Id. ¶¶ 24, 31.
{13} Davis instructs that the relevant question in assessing law enforcement's control or custody of a defendant's possessions is "whether there is a reasonable nexus between the arrest and the seizure of the object to be searched." Id. ¶¶ 14, 15. If a defendant possesses an object at the time of an arrest, "then a reasonable nexus exist[s] between the arrest and...
To continue reading
Request your trial