State v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 28 May 2015
• Docket Number: 33,587.
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Mark SANCHEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

355 P.3d 795

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Mark SANCHEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

33,587.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

May 28, 2015.

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Margaret McLean, Olga Serafimova, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Sue Anne Herrmann, Adjunct Professor of Law, Santa Fe, NM, John Campbell, Practicing Law Student, Santiago Solis, Pacticing Law Student, for Appellant.

OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals from the district court's judgment and sentence convicting him for trafficking methamphetamine by possession with the intent to distribute, which was entered pursuant to a conditional plea agreement. In the plea agreement, Defendant reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from Defendant's vehicle beginning with the officer's warrantless seizure of a bag of pills that Defendant attempted to hide from the officer. We agree with Defendant that the officer lacked probable cause to seize the bag of pills. We reverse the district court's denial of the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} The following facts were established by Officer McCarty, the only witness who testified at the suppression hearing. While on routine patrol during his graveyard shift, Officer McCarty noticed a black Infiniti with Colorado license plates stopped at an intersection. The officer “ran the number of the license plate, and it came back expired.” On this basis, Officer McCarty initiated and completed a traffic stop. When Officer McCarty approached the driver-side door, he asked for Defendant's driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Defendant leaned over toward the passenger's seat, where a passenger was seated, and appeared to be searching for his paperwork in the console or reaching for the glove box. During this time, the officer shone his flashlight around the inside of the vehicle to make sure there were “no weapons or anything.” The officer observed a clear, plastic bag on the floorboard of the vehicle by Defendant's right foot with what appeared to be “a capsule or a pill of some kind in it.” Later in his testimony, Officer McCarty stated that he observed two pills that were different kinds, but were similar. Defendant's foot obscured the rest of the bag from the officer's view.

{3} The officer asked Defendant what the pills were in the bag at his feet. Defendant placed his foot on top of the bag, tried to slide it underneath the driver's seat, and said, “What bag?” Officer McCarty immediately removed Defendant from the vehicle, explaining that he was afraid Defendant would “damage [the pills] or get [them] where [the officer could not] get a hold of them.” Officer McCarty then reached into the vehicle and removed the bag, explaining that he did not want the passenger to take it.

{4} The officer admitted that he could not identify the two pills he saw in the bag before removing the bag from the vehicle. The officer testified that he had specific training relevant to identification of pills while he was a full-time paramedic for thirteen years prior to his employment as a law enforcement officer, and that he had maintained his license because he continued to work part-time as a paramedic for the San Juan County SWAT team. Based on this training, the officer determined that the two pills he saw in the bag prior to seizing it were prescription medications. He could not determine the type of prescription medications, however, and had not asked whether Defendant was lawfully in possession of the prescription medications before removing them from the vehicle. These are the facts that form the basis for our analysis.

{5} We note that after the officer took the bag, he could see there were several different kinds of pills in it. The officer began questioning Defendant about the pills. Defendant stated that the pills were prescribed to him by his doctor for anxiety and a back injury. Defendant stated that the prescription pill bottles were at his house. Officer McCarty's testimony does not clearly explain how he proceeded after questioning Defendant in the patrol car. It appears that he arrested Defendant, performed an inventory search, sealed Defendant's vehicle, and obtained a search warrant. Evidence discovered in the course of the subsequent searches of the vehicle formed the basis for Defendant's conviction for trafficking methamphetamine.

{6} Argument at the suppression hearing and in motions focused entirely on the threshold seizure of the bag of pills and whether the seizure was supported by probable cause and exigency. The parties agreed that the facts were appropriately analyzed under the plain view doctrine and the need for exigency under New Mexico case law. The defense focused on the lack of probable cause under the plain view doctrine, arguing that the incriminating nature of the pills was not immediately apparent to Officer McCarty. The State, apparently drawing inferences from Officer McCarty's testimony, argued that the officer suspected the pills were contraband and, coupled with Defendant's attempt to hide the pills, Officer McCarty had the requisite probable cause. The State's arguments strongly emphasized the presence of exigency. The district court's written ruling denying the suppression of evidence agreed with the State that there were exigent circumstances and ruled that the officer's experience and observations, especially considering Defendant's furtive attempt to hide the pills, gave rise to probable cause.

II. DISCUSSION

The Parties' Arguments

{7} On appeal, Defendant argues that the officer's investigation into the pills was not founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the officer's warrantless seizure of the pills was not based on probable cause and exigency. The State argues that Defendant did not preserve a challenge to the officer's reasonable suspicion to inquire about the pills. The State contends that the district court properly concluded that the seizure of the pills was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances and argues that Defendant's focus on the plain view doctrine on appeal renders the district court's ruling on probable cause uncontested on appeal. The State also takes issue with Defendant's reference, without citation to the record, to statistical information regarding the percentage of Americans taking prescription drugs.

{8} Initially, we clarify which matters are properly before this Court. Defendant contends that although the officer's lack of reasonable suspicion was not argued below, the inquiry is relevant and necessary to determining the reasonableness of Officer McCarty's actions because, without a reasonable suspicion that the pills were evidence of a crime, there can be no probable cause. “It is an enduring principle of constitutional jurisprudence that courts will avoid deciding constitutional questions unless required to do so.” Schlieter v. Carlos, 1989–NMSC–037, ¶ 13, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709. The arguments before the district court were narrowly and repeatedly circumscribed to the warrantless seizure of the pills. Both the testimony elicited from the officer and the district court's ruling reflect this narrow issue. Consistent with our policy of judicial restraint and our rule requiring preservation, we decide this case on the preserved and narrowest possible grounds. See Rule 12–216(A) NMRA (“To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked[.]” ); Allen v. Lemaster, 2012–NMSC–001, ¶ 28, 267 P.3d 806 (citing Baca v. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 2002–NMSC–017, ¶ 12, 132 N.M. 282, 47 P.3d 441 for the proposition that “courts exercise judicial restraint by deciding cases on the narrowest possible grounds and avoid reaching unnecessary constitutional issues”). Thus, we do not decide whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to inquire about the pills before seizing them.

{9} We are not persuaded, however, by the State's attempt to characterize the district court's ruling as a rejection of the applicability of the plain view doctrine. The district court expressly found that the officer observed the bag in plain view. Nor are we persuaded by the State's attempt to distinguish the plain view analysis from the probable cause inquiry in arguing that Defendant abandoned a probable cause challenge. Below, we explain the relationship between the plain view doctrine and probable cause.

{10} Lastly, we note that we do not consider matters that are not of record, including the statistical information provided by Defendant on appeal. State v. Maez, 2009–NMCA–108, ¶ 8, 147 N.M. 91, 217 P.3d 104 (“This Court will not consider and counsel should not refer to matters not of record in their briefs”). We acknowledge, however, that many people are prescribed medication. See State v. Erickson K., 2002–NMCA–058, ¶ 24, 132 N.M. 258, 46 P.3d 1258 (“A court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute. Such facts must be matters of common and general knowledge which are well established and authoritatively settled.”) (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

Standard of Review

{11} “The district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of fact and law.” State v. Almanzar, 2014–NMSC–001, ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183. “[W]e review any factual questions under a substantial evidence standard and ... review the application of the law to those facts, making a de novo determination of the constitutional reasonableness of a search or seizure.” State v. Sewell, 2009–NMSC–033, ¶ 12, 146 N.M. 428, 211 P.3d 885 ; see also State v. Williamson, 2009–NMSC–039, ¶ 28, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376 (clarifying that in the context of warrantless searches and seizures, we review the...