State v. Paananen

• Decision Date: 10 September 2015
• Docket Number: 34,526.
• Citation: 357 P.3d 958,2015 NMSC 031
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Petitioner, v. Ernest PAANANEN, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

357 P.3d 958

2015 NMSC 031

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Petitioner

v.Ernest PAANANEN, Defendant–Respondent.

34,526.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 10, 2015.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General, Jacqueline Rose Medina, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.

Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, B. Douglas Wood, III, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent.

OPINION

BOSSON, Justice.

{1} Over two decades ago, in Campos v. State, 1994–NMSC–012, ¶ 1, 117 N.M. 155, 870 P.2d 117, this Court held that under our New Mexico Constitution a felony arrest must be preceded by an arrest warrant, even when supported by probable cause, unless exigent circumstances made securing a warrant impractical. Our opinion in Campos addressed a situation in which the authorities had ample time to obtain an arrest warrant and provided no good reason for failing to do so. In the present case, by contrast, police officers made their arrest at the scene of the crime, shoplifting, without any prior opportunity to secure a warrant. In the course of our analysis, we explain our reasons for differing from the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, and reverse the opinion upholding the suppression of evidence below. We remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

{2} Surveillance cameras at Sportsman's Warehouse in Albuquerque caught Defendant Ernest Paananen placing two flashlights under his jacket and then leaving the store without paying. Moments later, the store's loss prevention team apprehended Defendant and returned him to the store. The loss prevention team placed Defendant in a back room, frisked him, and called the police. During the frisk, a loss prevention employee placed Defendant's possessions on the table, along with the stolen flashlights. The employee did not go through Defendant's backpack.

{3} Albuquerque Police Department Officers Cole Knight and Andrew Hsu arrived at the store, and Officer Knight immediately handcuffed Defendant. Officer Hsu searched Defendant's backpack and found hypodermic needles. When questioned about the needles, Defendant admitted that he had tried to use drugs the day before but said he did not currently possess any drugs.

{4} While waiting for a copy of the surveillance video, Officer Knight searched through Defendant's possessions on the table and found a cigarette pack. Officer Knight looked in the cigarette pack and found a substance he believed to be heroin, a hunch later confirmed by a field kit test. Along with shoplifting, the State charged Defendant with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.

{5} Subsequently, Defendant sought to suppress all evidence seized at the store, arguing that the officers had conducted an unreasonable, warrantless search in violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. In response, the State emphasized that the officers had specific statutory authority in shoplifting cases to arrest Defendant without a warrant. See NMSA 1978, Section 30–16–23 (1965) (“Any law enforcement officer may arrest without warrant any person [the officer] has probable cause for believing has committed the crime of shoplifting....” (emphasis added)). The State then argued that because the arrest was valid, the officers conducted a lawful search of Defendant in the course of that arrest.

{6} At the suppression hearing, the State argued that the search 1) was incident to a valid arrest for shoplifting, and 2) was the result of inevitable discovery pursuant to that arrest. Unpersuaded, the district court suppressed all evidence seized, concluding that “the State ha[d] failed to establish that the search was conducted pursuant to any exception to the warrant requirement....” The State appealed the suppression order to the Court of Appeals. See NMSA 1978, § 39–3–3(B)(2) (1972) (“In any criminal proceeding in district court an appeal may be taken by the state to the ... court of appeals ... within ten days from a[n] ... order ... suppressing or excluding evidence....”).

Court of Appeals opinion

{7} The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression, holding “that the [warrantless] arrest of Defendant was not lawful under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.” State v. Paananen, 2014–NMCA–041, ¶ 2, 321 P.3d 945, cert. granted, 2014–NMCERT–003, 324 P.3d 376 (No. 34,526, Mar. 28, 2014). The Court acknowledged that a warrantless search may be conducted incident to a lawful arrest. Id. ¶ 17. The validity of the search, therefore, depended on the lawfulness of the arrest, and in this case Defendant was apprehended without an arrest warrant. To determine the validity of the warrantless arrest, the Court of Appeals focused heavily on Campos, 1994–NMSC–012, 117 N.M. 155, 870 P.2d 117, one of this Court's first opinions interpreting Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution distinctly from its federal counterpart, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

{8} In Campos, this Court held that an arrest without a warrant was valid only if both supported by probable cause and made under sufficient exigent circumstances. 1994–NMSC–012, ¶ 1, 117 N.M. 155, 870 P.2d 117. After determining that “Defendant presented no imminent threat to escape or destroy evidence,” and that “the State made no showing of exigent circumstances,” the Court of Appeals held that the arresting officers first needed a warrant to arrest Defendant. Paananen, 2014–NMCA–041, ¶ 35–36, 321 P.3d 945. Only then could they justify searching Defendant incident to a lawful arrest, despite the undisputed presence of probable cause. See id. Accordingly, because the officers arrested Defendant without an arrest warrant, the Court of Appeals held that the arrest and subsequent search were unconstitutional and suppression of the evidence was appropriate. Id.

{9} In resolving the case at bar, we consider both federal and state constitutional precedent, especially our opinion in Campos, because the lawfulness of Defendant's warrantless arrest at Sportsman's Warehouse—and the search incident thereto—hangs in the balance.

DISCUSSION

{10} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. We review factual determinations for substantial evidence and legal determinations de novo.” State v. Ketelson, 2011–NMSC–023, ¶ 9, 150 N.M. 137, 257 P.3d 957.

The State properly preserved the issue of a search incident to an arrest

{11} Initially, we uphold the Court of Appeals' decision that the State properly preserved its theory of a search incident to an arrest. While the State initially argued only that the search of Defendant was the result of an inevitable discovery, the State clarified during the suppression hearing that it was also relying on an alternative theory of search incident to arrest. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the State sufficiently asserted the issue and adduced the evidence necessary to support the legal principle. Defendant, moreover, had an opportunity to respond below. Thus, we are satisfied that the issue was preserved for review on appeal. See Paananen, 2014–NMCA–041, ¶ 15, 321 P.3d 945.

Reasonableness of a warrantless arrest under the Fourth Amendment

{12} To determine the constitutionality of Defendant's arrest, under our interstitial approach to constitutional analysis, before looking to our New Mexico Constitution we first decide whether the arrest was lawful under the U.S. Constitution. State v. Gomez, 1997–NMSC–006, ¶ 19, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1. Only if the federal constitution would not provide protection from the law enforcement activity under consideration, do we then turn to the civil liberties protected under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. Gomez, 1997–NMSC–006, ¶ 19, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1.

{13} The Fourth Amendment guarantees that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

shall not be violated....” U.S. Const. amend. IV (emphasis added). “To determine the constitutionality of a seizure we must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

{14} Almost 40 years ago, in United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court squarely applied these principles to determine the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest supported by probable cause and explicit statutory authority, similar to the statutory authority to arrest in cases of shoplifting in New Mexico. See Section 30–16–23 (“Any law enforcement officer may arrest without warrant any person [the officer] has probable cause for believing has committed the crime of shoplifting....” (emphasis added)). In Watson, a statute authorized postal service officers to “make arrests without warrant for felonies cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony.” Id. at 415, 96 S.Ct. 820. Watson was suspected of possessing stolen credit cards. Id. at 412, 96 S.Ct. 820. An informant notified the postal inspector, and the inspector subsequently set up a sting operation to catch Watson in possession of the stolen credit cards. Id. at 412–13, 96 S.Ct. 820. The informant notified the postal inspector six days before the sting operation. Id. at 426, 96 S.Ct. 820 (Powell, J., concurring). Once Watson arrived at the intended meeting, officers arrested him. Id. at 413, 96 S.Ct. 820. After receiving permission to search Watson's vehicle, officers discovered two stolen credit cards. Id.

{15} The main...