State v. Siqueiros-Valenzuela

• Decision Date: 25 April 2017
• Docket Number: NO. A-1-CA-35194.,A-1-CA-35194.
• Citation: 404 P.3d 782
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen SIQUEIROS-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

404 P.3d 782

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Karen SIQUEIROS-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellee.

NO. A-1-CA-35194.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: April 25, 2017

Certiorari Denied, July 6, 2017, No. S-1-SC-36486

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Steven H. Johnston, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

Ruiz De La Torre Law Firm, Carlos Ruiz de la Torre, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge

{1} The State of New Mexico appeals from an order of the district court suppressing evidence discovered following a traffic stop based on a violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-317(A) (1978) (failure to maintain a lane). We conclude that the district court was correct in its determination. The traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and the officer who subsequently discovered the evidence of criminal activity did so only after he stopped Defendant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} On March 20, 2013, at approximately 7:00 p.m., Officer Joseph Garcia of the New Mexico State Police was driving eastbound on Interstate 40 near Grants, New Mexico when he observed the car driven by Defendant make a legal lane change from the right lane into the left lane of this multi-lane interstate highway. As Defendant attempted to pass two semi-trucks that were in the right lane, her vehicle's left tires touched the yellow shoulder line of the left passing lane. This incident was recorded on the dash cam video of Officer Garcia's police vehicle. Once Defendant passed the semi-trucks, she then made a legal lane change back into the right lane. Other than Officer Garcia's observation of Defendant's movement in relation to the shoulder line, he "did not observe any other driving violations, erratic driving, or weaving of the vehicle within its own lane[.]" However, based on his perception that Defendant violated Section 66-7-317(A), Officer Garcia pulled Defendant over. Officer Garcia testified at the suppression hearing that "he regularly pulls over drivers for ... a single touching [or crossing] of a lane line."

{3} Although not of particular relevance to the issue on appeal, given the district court's suppression solely on the basis of the traffic stop, we provide the following facts for background. Upon making the traffic stop, Officer Garcia made contact with Defendant and her passenger, ran a warrant check on both, and spoke with Defendant for approximately twenty minutes before writing her two citations, one for failure to maintain a lane and one for driving without a driver's license. Once the citations were written and issued, Officer Garcia then asked Defendant if he could ask her a couple more questions. The renewed questioning went on for an additional fifteen minutes and included the questioning of the passenger. Sometime during the additional questioning—approximately twenty-seven minutes after the initial stop—Officer Garcia noted that Defendant and the passenger gave inconsistent answers to his questions. Officer Garcia then obtained consent from Defendant and the passenger to search the vehicle. Ultimately, the search of the vehicle resulted in the discovery of four bundles of methamphetamine, leading to felony charges against Defendant for trafficking of controlled substances (methamphetamine) (possession with intent to distribute) and conspiracy to commit trafficking of methamphetamine.

{4} Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that (1) the initial stop violated the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, and (2) Officer Garcia impermissibly expanded the scope of the traffic stop. The district court held a hearing on Defendant's motion. The only issue addressed by the district court was whether Officer Garcia had reasonable suspicion that Defendant violated Section 66-7-317(A). In pertinent part, Section 66-7-317(A) provides:

Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others consistent herewith shall apply:

A. a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety[.]

{5} Officer Garcia testified at the hearing that he saw the tires on Defendant's vehicle touch the yellow line of the shoulder. However, according to the district court, Officer Garcia's dash cam video—admitted into evidence at the hearing without objection—showed that the tires on Defendant's vehicle touched, but did not cross, the yellow line, and only did so once. The district court, based upon its own observation of the incident via the dash cam video, specifically found that the only potential violation of Section 66-7-317(A) was the single touching of the shoulder line. Additionally, although Officer Garcia testified that Defendant's action "could have" constituted "some type" of safety risk to herself and her passenger, the district court found the evidence of a safety concern to be insufficient, especially where the video evidence showed nothing on the left-hand side of the vehicle, and the vehicle only touched the shoulder line momentarily.

{6} At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the district court decided that the one, brief touching of the left yellow shoulder line, where Defendant was in the process of passing two semi-trucks on the interstate, did not provide Officer Garcia with justification to conduct a traffic stop. Specifically, the district court indicated that Section 66-7-317(A)'s requirement that a driver maintain a single lane "as nearly as practicable" appears "to allow some slack" and that it is reasonable—and safe—for a driver to move as far to the left as possible when passing a semi-truck at seventy-five miles per hour. Consequently, the district court suppressed the evidence discovered as a result of the stop. This appeal by the State followed.

DISCUSSION

{7} On appeal, the State contends that "[t]he district court erred as a matter of law in determining that the statute governing driving on roadways laned for traffic[, Section 66-7-317,] permits drivers to cross or touch the lane line once without violating the statute." The State also argues that there was reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendant was driving while impaired.

{8} Initially, we are not persuaded by the State's alternative argument based on impairment. We note the issue of Defendant's impairment was not argued by the State below, either in its response to Defendant's motion to dismiss or during the suppression hearing. Officer Garcia specifically testified that he stopped Defendant based solely on the violation of Section 66-7-317(A), and the district court made a point of emphasizing that its ruling was based entirely on its determination that under the factual circumstances presented, there was no a violation of Section 66-7-317(A). As a result, we are not convinced that this issue was ever presented to the district court for a ruling or preserved for appeal. See State v. Varela , 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280 ("In order to preserve an error for appeal, it is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Lucero , 1999-NMCA-102, ¶ 45, 127 N.M. 672, 986 P.2d 468 (refusing to address arguments that were not made in the district court and no assertion of fundamental error is made on appeal). Therefore, we will only address the question of whether the district court's determination that Officer Garcia did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant for a violation of Section 66-7-317(A) was error.

I. Standard of Review

{9} In reviewing a district court's suppression ruling, this Court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the ruling and defers to the district court's findings of fact as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. See State v. Jason L. , 2000-NMSC-018, ¶¶ 10-11, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856. We "review de novo the district court's application of the law to those facts." State v. King , 2013-NMSC-014, ¶ 4, 300 P.3d 732.

{10} Statutory construction is a matter of law that is also reviewed de novo. See State v. Rivera , 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939. When we construe a statute, our "guiding principle is that we should determine and effectuate the Legislature's intent when it enacted the statute." State ex rel. Brandenburg v. Sanchez , 2014-NMSC-022, ¶ 4, 329 P.3d 654. "In discerning the Legislature's intent, [the appellate courts] are aided by classic canons of statutory construction[ ] and ... look first to the plain language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning, unless the Legislature indicates a different one was intended." Delfino v. Griffo , 2011-NMSC-015, ¶ 12, 150 N.M. 97, 257 P.3d 917 ( internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

II. Analysis

{11} The stop of a vehicle for the purpose of investigating a traffic violation is an investigative seizure under the Fourth Amendment and must be justified at its inception. See State v. Leyva , 2011-NMSC-009, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861. Justification consists of an officer having reasonable, articulable suspicion that a particular individual is breaking or has broken the law. See Jason L. , 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 20, 2 P.3d 856 (setting forth the standard for reasonable suspicion); see also State v. Duran , 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 23, 138 N.M. 414, 120 P.3d 836 (stating that New Mexico courts apply a reasonable suspicion analysis for investigatory traffic stops), overruled on other grounds by Leyva , 2011-NMSC-009, 250 P.3d 861. This includes reasonable suspicion that a...