State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 05 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. 24,735.,24,735.
• Citation: 2006 NMCA 003,126 P.3d 567
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William C. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

126 P.3d 567

2006 NMCA 003

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.William C. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 24,735.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

November 9, 2005.

Certiorari Granted, No. 29,562, January 5, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney GeneralArthur W. Pepin, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

Inocente, P.C., Brian A. Pori, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

OPINION

KENNEDY, Judge.

{1} In this casewe examine when and how police conduct in the investigation of a misdemeanor traffic violation exceeds the bounds of reasonableness to impinge upon constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures.We hold the post-midnight visit to Defendant's home during which police ordered Defendant to be awakened and then demanded that Defendant exit his home constitutes a non-consensual investigative detention.We further hold the seizure amounted to an illegal seizure under the New Mexico and United States Constitutions because it was unsupported by reasonable suspicion.As a result, we reverse the district court.The evidence obtained as a result of the post-midnight visit by the police to the Defendant's home is suppressed as to the identification of Defendant and any admissions Defendant made as a consequence of that police visit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

{2} On the facts set forth below, Defendant filed a motion to suppress with the metropolitan court, claiming an unconstitutional seizure of his person.The metropolitan court granted Defendant's motion, entered an order suppressing the evidence obtained from the police visit, and dismissed the case.The State then appealed de novo to the district court, which denied Defendant's motion to suppress.Pursuant to a conditional plea and disposition agreement in the district court, Defendant was convicted of the petty misdemeanor of careless driving.SeeNMSA 1978, § 66-8-114(1978).He reserved for appeal issues from his motion to suppress based upon the police conduct that resulted in a citation being issued to him.The issue of whether police conduct was constitutionally permissible was thus adequately preserved for our review.SeeState v. Varela,1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280.

{3} On April 20, 2003, Officer Moore of the Albuquerque Police Department was working near Osuna Road and I-25.As Officer Moore left the area and prepared to enter southbound I-25, he observed two motorcycles on the roadway a short distance ahead of him.One of the motorcycles was red.The driver of the red motorcycle was a blond man, 18 to 25 years of age, who was swerving in and out of traffic and "popp[ing]""wheelies."Officer Moore considered this "shocking" behavior and a "potential accident."Officer Moore initiated pursuit.He activated his overhead lights and later his siren, but the motorcycles did not stop.Both motorcycles then rapidly accelerated.Officer Moore lost sight of the speeding motorcycles when his vehicle developed engine trouble.

{4} Officer Moore recorded the license plate number of the red motorcycle and decided to pursue the matter at a later time.When he looked up the plate number, Officer Moore learned that the number did not correspond to a valid vehicle registration.Other officers suggested that the "9"Office Moore had recorded as the first digit of the plate number was likely a "P" because motorcycle plate numbers start with a "P."Officer Moore confirmed that motorcycle plate numbers began with a "P" by observing registered motorcycles parked outside a motorcycle shop.When he substituted the "9" with a "P,"he found that the plate number corresponded to a motorcycle registered in Defendant's name.The address on the registration was Defendant's home.

{5} Officer Moore was asked on the witness stand about standard procedures for investigating traffic violations.He testified that had he been confident that the registered owner was the driver he had observed, he could have mailed Defendant a summons to appear in court on the charges based on the registration information.However, Officer Moore was uncertain whether the driver he had observed and the motorcycle's registered owner were the same person.Officer Moore did not want to inconvenience Defendant if Defendant was the motorcycle's owner but innocent of the behavior Officer Moore had observed.Officer Moore thus decided to contact Defendant personally.

{6} Officer Moore worked the "graveyard" shift and did not report for duty again until about 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22.Officer Moore testified that once he returned to duty, he considered it imperative to continue his investigation and to contact anyone who might know something about the motorcycle.It does not appear that he considered pursuing his investigation during daytime hours.Officer Moore testified that "it would be irresponsible for me to make contact with [Defendant] at a time where I was not acting in my duties as a police officer or at least during my duty hours."

{7} Officer Moore went to the address of the motorcycle's registered owner, "in hopes of making contact or at least observing a motorcycle there or making contact with the owner, certainly the driver that day, because I had no idea at that point whether the driver was in fact the owner of the vehicle."He believed someone would likely be at home because of the late hour.He was not particularly concerned about the lateness of the hour because that was when he worked, and he took calls throughout his shift.On the whole, Officer Moore believed the danger of the violation he had observed outweighed any inconvenience to the owner of making contact at a late hour.Officer Moore also testified he was certain that if Defendant had not been the driver he had observed, Defendant, as owner of the motorcycle, would "want to know how recklessly his motorcycle was being operated."

{8} Officer Moore arrived at Defendant's home at 12:21 a.m., the morning of Wednesday, April 23, 2003.Officer Moore had neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant when he went to Defendant's home.He was dressed in full uniform and was driving his police car.Officer Moore noticed a motorcycle parked on the property at Defendant's home, but did not attempt to associate it with the incident.Officer Moore's knock on the front door was answered by a young man who was Defendant's roommate.Officer Moore asked if Defendant was at home.Defendant's roommate replied in the affirmative and asked why Officer Moore was there.Officer Moore told Defendant's roommate that he was conducting an investigation and wanted to speak with Defendant.Defendant's roommate said Defendant was in the back and that he would get him.Officer Moore knew Defendant would need to be awakened to talk with him.

{9} When Defendant got to the door, Officer Moore told him that he was investigating a traffic violation and asked him to step outside the house.When Defendant exited the house, Officer Moore recognized Defendant as the person he had seen on the red motorcycle.At that time, Officer Moore advised Defendant that he was, at that point, conducting a criminal investigation.

{10} Officer Moore read Defendant a Miranda advisory, which Defendant indicated he understood.In the course of their conversation, Defendant admitted that he was the motorcycle driver Officer Moore had observed the previous Sunday.Officer Moore informed Defendanthe was considering citing Defendant for reckless driving but that he needed to leave.

{11} After leaving Defendant's home, Officer Moore conferred with his supervisor.Officer Moore was told by his supervisor to contact Defendant again at "a more reasonable hour" and to either cite Defendant or issue a summons on the charge.Later that same morning of April 23, at approximately 6:30 a.m., Officer Moore delivered the citation to Defendant at Defendant's home.

{12} In metropolitan court, Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during Officer Moore's late night visit to Defendant's home was granted and the case was dismissed.The State appealed de novo to the district court.The district court heard and denied Defendant's motion to suppress and issued a written order incorporating its observations from the suppression hearing.Defendant appeals as part of a conditional plea agreement that followed denial of his motion to suppress.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{13} Questions about whether a person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution are mixed questions of law and fact.State v. Walters,1997-NMCA-013, ¶ 8, 123 N.M. 88, 934 P.2d 282.Questions surrounding the suppression of evidence are mixed questions of law and fact.State v. Vandenberg,2003-NMSC-030, ¶ 17, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19.We will not disturb a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence when it is supported by substantial evidence, unless the law was erroneously applied to the facts.Walters,1997-NMCA-013, ¶ 8, 123 N.M. 88, 934 P.2d 282.Questions of law are reviewed de novo.Hedicke v. Gunville,2003-NMCA-032, ¶ 9, 133 N.M. 335, 62 P.3d 1217.Questions of fact are reviewed to determine whether the district court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.State v. Lopez,109 N.M. 169, 171, 783 P.2d 479, 481(Ct.App.1989).

DISCUSSION

{14} The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.We first discuss whether the police conduct during the visit to Defendant's home constituted a seizure of Defendant for purposes of constitutional analysis.We conclude it did.Officer Moore compelled Defendant's participation in his investigation by using his authority as a police officer.He exercised that authority in a manner that would lead most innocent reasonable persons in Defendant's position to...