State v. Widmer

Citation461 P.3d 881
Decision Date19 March 2020
Docket NumberNO. S-1-SC-36966,S-1-SC-36966
Parties STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Ronald WIDMER, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

THOMSON, Justice.

{1} This appeal requires us to determine whether an officer’s question was sufficiently related to protecting officer safety to qualify for the public safety exception to the admissibility requirements of Miranda announced in New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649, 655-56, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). The Court of Appeals determined that the question in this case did not qualify for the Quarles public safety exception. State v. Widmer , 2018-NMCA-035, ¶ 29, 419 P.3d 714. The Court of Appeals consequently reversed Defendant Ronald Widmer’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine and remanded for a new trial. Id. ¶¶ 1, 40. We respectfully disagree and affirm the ruling of the district court that the Quarles public safety exception applied in this case because of the need to determine whether Defendant was armed or carrying potentially harmful drug paraphernalia before officers performed a pat-down search. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals on its disqualification of the public safety exception and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} Officers from the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) approached Defendant in a Walgreens parking lot in the late evening. Defendant, accompanied by a woman, was trying to start a motor scooter. APD had received an anonymous tip concerning two persons and a scooter with an ignition that "appeared to be tampered with." The officers suspected that the scooter was stolen. After briefly speaking with Defendant and the woman, officers ran Defendant’s personal identification information and the scooter’s vehicle identification number (VIN) through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to check for outstanding warrants and any stolen vehicle reports. NCIC did not return a stolen vehicle report but did report Defendant’s outstanding felony warrants for trafficking drugs. Officers placed Defendant in handcuffs while they awaited confirmation that the warrants were valid.

{3} While Defendant was in custody, but before he was advised of his Miranda rights, an officer asked him, "Is there anything on your person that I should know about?" Defendant responded, "I have meth." Officers collected a white powder from inside a pill container hanging from Defendant’s belt loop and placed it in a plastic evidence bag. After officers recovered the physical evidence, Defendant muttered, "Well, I’m gonna have another charge now." The white powder recovered from Defendant’s belt loop tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result, Defendant was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance.

{4} Defendant asked the district court to suppress both his "alleged" statement to officers concerning "meth" and the physical evidence, arguing that the officer’s question following arrest did not qualify under the narrow public safety exception to Miranda . The district court denied Defendant’s motion but instructed the jury to determine whether the "statement allegedly made by the defendant ... was given voluntarily" before considering it in deliberations. See UJI 14-5040 NMRA. The jury found Defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine.

{5} Defendant appealed his conviction for possessing methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and held that the statement and the physical evidence should have been suppressed. Widmer , 2018-NMCA-035, ¶¶ 29-30, 419 P.3d 714. The Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial because it held that the erroneously admitted evidence was not harmless error, id. ¶¶ 38-40, and therefore declined to address the merits of other issues Defendant raised, see id. ¶ 40. We granted certiorari.

II. DISCUSSION

{6} The Court of Appeals majority did not address the issue Defendant raised concerning the lawfulness of his arrest. Id. Because that issue was not presented to this Court in the State’s petition for writ of certiorari, we do not determine whether Defendant’s arrest was lawful. See State v. Morales , 2010-NMSC-026, ¶ 19, 148 N.M. 305, 236 P.3d 24 ("Under the appellate rules, it is improper for this Court to consider any questions except those set forth in the petition for certiorari." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Rule 12-502(C)(2)(b) NMRA ("[T]he Court will consider only the questions set forth in the petition."). We turn to the issue of whether the district court erred by admitting the incriminating statement officers elicited from Defendant based on the Quarles public safety exception to Miranda .

{7} Because the officers chose not to take the short, simple step of advising Defendant of his constitutional rights, we must determine whether Defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation, and if so, whether there was an exception to Miranda that renders his statements admissible. If a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation but not advised of his rights under Miranda , the law generally requires that the defendant’s response be suppressed. See Quarles , 467 U.S. at 654, 104 S.Ct. 2626 ("The Miranda Court, however, presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances is inherently coercive and held that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights." (footnote omitted)). However, suppression of a defendant’s statements or responses to an unadvised custodial interrogation is not required if the Quarles public safety exception applies. See id. 467 U.S. at 655, 104 S.Ct. 2626 ("[T]here is a ‘public safety’ exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted into evidence.").

{8} Although we determine that Defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation, we respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals reasoning concerning the application of the Quarles public safety exception in this case. Because we conclude that the Quarles exception applies, we reverse on this issue, vacate the Court of Appeals opinion, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We specifically instruct the Court of Appeals to address Defendant’s argument concerning the lawfulness of his arrest, as it appears to be relevant to the remaining analysis. See, e.g. , State v. Almanzar , 2014-NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 316 P.3d 183 ("If [a d]efendant’s arrest was lawful, then the search incident to the arrest falls within the exception to the constitutional search warrant requirement."); State v. Ruffino , 1980-NMSC-072, ¶ 3, 94 N.M. 500, 612 P.2d 1311 (observing that "search incident to a lawful arrest" is one of the recognized exceptions that permit warrantless searches).

{9} The minority, citing Quarles , would hold that although Defendant was in custody, "questions designed to protect public safety" are exempt from the definition of interrogation. See Min. Op. ¶¶ 47-58. We disagree. By exempting questions designed to protect public safety, Quarles did not redefine what constitutes interrogation. Instead, Quarles determined that exigent circumstances may justify an exception to Miranda and permit a court to admit a defendant’s self-incriminating statements regardless of whether the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation. Quarles , 467 U.S. at 655-56, 658, 104 S.Ct. 2626. Quarles specifically observed, "The New York Court of Appeals was undoubtedly correct in deciding that the facts of this case come within the ambit of the Miranda decision as we have subsequently interpreted it." 467 U.S. at 655-56, 104 S.Ct. 2626. However, Quarles recognized "a narrow exception to the Miranda rule ... [that] will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it." Id. at 658, 104 S.Ct. 2626.

{10} If questions designed to protect public safety were never interrogation, there would be no reason for Quarles to create an exception to the requirements of Miranda . We choose to remain faithful to the Fifth Amendment and the Quarles analysis. Defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation, but the Quarles public safety exception applied. The district court did not err by admitting Defendant’s statement in this case.

A. Standard of Review

{11} "Appellate review of a district court’s decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence involves mixed questions of fact and law." State v. Urioste , 2002-NMSC-023, ¶ 6, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964. "The trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence, unless it also appears that the determination was incorrectly premised." State v. Jacobs , 2000-NMSC-026, ¶ 34, 129 N.M. 448, 10 P.3d 127 ; accord State v. Trangucci , 1990-NMCA-009, ¶ 13, 110 N.M. 385, 796 P.2d 606. This Court reviews the application of the law de novo but views the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Ochoa , 2004-NMSC-023, ¶ 5, 135 N.M. 781, 93 P.3d 1286. "Whether facts support an exception to the Miranda requirement is a question of law." United States v. Lackey , 334 F.3d 1224, 1226 (10th Cir. 2003).

B. The Officer’s Question Subjected Defendant to Custodial Interrogation

{12} "Prior to any [custodial interrogation, a] person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." See Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). This Court has stated, "The federal and state constitutional provisions [protect] against self-incrimination and require, at a minimum, that before any individual may be subjected to custodial interrogation, the individual must be made aware of various rights the courts have established to aid in protecting...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Grisham v. Romero
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • February 15, 2021
    ...degree—the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends."); State v. Widmer , 2020-NMSC-007, ¶ 1, 461 P.3d 881 (affirming the ruling of the district court "that the Quarels public safety exception applied ... because of the need to determine whether D......
  • State v. Atencio
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • June 22, 2021
    ...against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." State v. Widmer , 2020-NMSC-007, ¶ 12, 461 P.3d 881 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). However, Miranda warnings only apply when (1) the person is in custody; and (......
  • State v. Widmer
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • September 15, 2020
    ...arrest. State v. Widmer (Widmer I ), 2018-NMCA-035, ¶ 1, 419 P.3d 714, rev'd , State v. Widmer (Widmer II ), 2020-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 8, 42-44, 461 P.3d 881. The jury convicted Defendant of one count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23......
  • State v. Pacheco
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • June 28, 2021
    ...court's decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence involves mixed questions of fact and law." State v. Widmer, 2020-NMSC-007, ¶ 11, 461 P.3d 881 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the application of the law de novo but view "the evidence in the light most favor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT