State v. Sheehan

• Decision Date: 26 November 2014
• Docket Number: 33,192.,No. 35,100.,35,100.
• Citation: 344 P.3d 1064
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Kevin SHEEHAN, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

344 P.3d 1064

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.Kevin SHEEHAN, Defendant–Appellee.

33,192.

No. 35,100.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Nov. 26, 2014.

Certiorari Denied, Feb. 16, 2015,

Gary K. King, Attorney General, Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

John R. Hakanson, P.C., Miguel Garcia, Alamogordo, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

FRY, Judge.

{1} The State appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence gathered during Defendant's arrest for driving while intoxicated. Officer Cory Crayton detained Defendant after observing what he believed to be an unconscious female passenger in Defendant's vehicle, which was parked on the side of the road. The district court concluded that Officer Crayton did not have reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory detention and that the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment did not apply to Officer Crayton's actions. Because we conclude that the district court applied the wrong standard in analyzing Officer Crayton's actions, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

{2} The following facts are taken from Officer Crayton's testimony at the suppression hearing. Officer Crayton was patrolling state highway 48 in Lincoln County when he noticed a Jeep parked on the shoulder of the road. It was just after midnight. The driver's side door was open and the interior light was on. Inside the Jeep were two people; Defendant was in the driver's seat, and a woman was in the passenger seat. Officer Crayton testified that the woman was crouched to the side with her head tilted completely back, such that he could “see her esophagus.” He stated that it did not look like a position one would choose to sleep in. Officer Crayton testified that Defendant was “leaning” over her.

{3} Believing that something might be wrong, Officer Crayton stopped beside the Jeep and asked whether they were okay. Defendant responded that they were and then, according to Officer Crayton, he anxiously began attempting to leave. At this point, Officer Crayton backed up, activated his lights, and pulled in behind the vehicle. He testified that he did not see any indication that something violent or criminal had taken place between Defendant and the female passenger. Instead, he was concerned for the woman because, although she may have been sleeping, she did not look like she was in a sleeping position, and he believed that she may have been unconscious. Officer Crayton testified that at that point, he intended to detain the vehicle in order to ensure the female passenger's safety.

{4} Officer Crayton approached the vehicle on the passenger side. At that point, the woman “came to” and said something to Officer Crayton. Officer Crayton testified that his concern for the female passenger was alleviated by her speaking. He testified, however, that he smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the Jeep. He therefore asked Defendant to exit the Jeep. As Officer Crayton spoke to Defendant, he smelled alcohol on Defendant's breath. Officer Crayton asked Defendant to perform a field sobriety test. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated.

{5} Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he was unconstitutionally seized the moment Officer Crayton turned on his emergency lights and pulled behind Defendant's car. The district court agreed with Defendant and concluded that there was no evidence that there was an emergency requiring the assistance of Officer Crayton nor was there reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was underway. Accordingly, the district court suppressed any evidence obtained by Officer Crayton after the stop. The State now appeals.

DISCUSSION

{6} The State argues that the district court relied on the wrong standard in granting Defendant's motion to suppress because it relied on the higher standard of the community caretaker exception that applies to warrantless entries into residences. We agree with the State that the district court applied the wrong test in determining that the stop violated Defendant's constitutional rights.

Standard of Review

{7} On appeal from a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we review findings of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence and we review legal conclusions de novo. State v. Leyba, 1997–NMCA–023, ¶ 8, 123 N.M. 159, 935 P.2d 1171. In determining whether the law was correctly applied to the facts, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. State v. Cline, 1998–NMCA–154, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 77, 966 P.2d 785. However, because the facts are largely undisputed in this case, we review only the legal conclusions of the district court in granting Defendant's motion to suppress. State v. Morales,

2005–NMCA–027, ¶ 8, 137 N.M. 73, 107 P.3d 513.

Officer Crayton Validly Stopped Defendant Pursuant to the Community Caretaker Exception

{8} There is no dispute that the initial encounter between Defendant and Officer Crayton was appropriate. As stated above, however, the district court concluded that a seizure occurred once Officer Crayton activated his lights and pulled behind Defendant. The district court concluded that Officer Crayton did not have reasonable suspicion for such a stop. In turning to the community caretaker exception, the district court stated that the standard for analyzing this encounter was whether there were “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for [police officer] assistance for the protection of life or property.” The district court noted that despite repeated opportunities to do so, Officer Crayton never testified that he thought there was an emergency. The district court therefore concluded that the community caretaker exception did not apply.

{9} We agree with the district court that Officer Crayton did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to undertake an investigative detention of Defendant when he first activated his lights and pulled in behind him. State v. Walters, 1997–NMCA–013, ¶ 10, 123 N.M. 88, 934 P.2d 282 (stating that investigatory stops, which constitute a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, require reasonable suspicion). The issue then is whether Officer Crayton was acting pursuant to his role as a community caretaker when he detained Defendant. Id. (recognizing that “in some circumstances, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police may intrude upon an individual's privacy to carry out community caretaker functions that further public safety”). “An officer who is acting as a community caretaker does not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Schuster v. State Dep't of Taxation & Revenue, 2012–NMSC–025, ¶ 26, 283 P.3d 288. Therefore, “[w]hen police act as community caretakers, ... the existence of reasonable suspicion or grounds for probable cause are not appropriate inquiries.” State v. Ryon, 2005–NMSC–005, ¶ 20, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032. “When determining whether a warrantless search or seizure is reasonable on the basis of the community caretaker exception, we must measure the public need and interest furthered by the police conduct against the degree of and nature of the intrusion upon the privacy of the citizen.” Id. ¶ 24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

{10} Due to differing expectations of privacy, however, not all actions by police that invoke the community caretaking exception are analyzed under the same standard. Id. ¶ 25. In this case, the district court stated that the standard was whether there were “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand.” This language comes from the first element of the “emergency aid doctrine.” Id. ¶¶ 25, 29 (“First, the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). The emergency aid doctrine is only one of three distinct doctrines within the broadly-termed “community caretaker exception,” the other two being the automobile impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the redundantly-titled community caretaking doctrine, also known as the public servant doctrine. Id. ¶ 25. To avoid confusion, we will refer to the third doctrine as the public servant doctrine. While these doctrines share the “common characteristic” of applying to situations in which the police officer's actions “are motivated by a desire to aid victims rather than investigate criminals,” because each doctrine involves separate types of intrusions involving distinct expectations of privacy, the doctrines are analyzed by different standards. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

{11} The emergency aid doctrine “applies specifically to warrantless intrusions into the home.”¹

Ryon, 2005–NMSC–005, ¶ 31, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032. Our Supreme Court has stated that the inquiry under the emergency aid doctrine is “unique” because “a search within a home raises unique concerns.” Id. ¶ 22. “[I]ntrusion into the privacy and sanctity of the home must be guarded with careful vigilance and permitted only in carefully thought-through and clearly justifiable circumstances.” Id. ¶ 19 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, the burden for justifying a warrantless entry into a private residence under the emergency aid doctrine is significantly higher than the standards under the other community caretaker doctrines. Id. ¶ 26 (“Since the privacy expectation is strongest in the home only a genuine emergency will justify entering and searching a home without a warrant and without consent or knowledge.”); see State v. Baca, 2007–NMCA–016, ¶ 31, 141 N.M. 65, 150 P.3d 1015 (“This standard is high because it reflects the bedrock constitutional principle that a warrantless entry into a home presents unique concerns.”). The encounter in this case did not involve a warrantless entry into a home....