Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c atio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 1 2 -4 0 5 NM RA for re strictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that th is e le c tr on ic me mor and um o pin ion

may c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations from the officia l paper version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date
. 1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v
. N O. 33, 462 5 CR AIG Y ORK , 6 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 7 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 8 Br et t Lo ve le ss, D ist ri ctJu dg e 9 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 10 Margar et E . Mc Le an, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 11 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 12 San ta Fe, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Tod d B . Hot ch ki ss , Att orne y at Law, LLC 15 T odd H otc hki ss 16 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 17 fo r Appe llant 18 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION 19 WECH SLER , Jud ge.2

1 { 1} W e co nsi de r in thi s a ppe al w he the r the pub lic se rv an t do ctri ne pe rm itt ed the 2 ar re sti ng o ff

ic er to de ta in a

ve hic le w ith out

r ea sona ble sus pic ionof the c om

m iss ion 3 of a cr im e in order to investigate the circum stances of a wom an wa lking alone on an 4 unl it ro ad

a t ni ght w hil e be ing obs er

ve d by am anse at ed

in a ve hic le a t a

sto p si gn. 5 W e hol d th at

the c ir cu m stanc es j ust if

ie d ar ea sona

ble sa fe ty c onc er n onthe part

of the 6 o ff i ce r a n dt h at t h e s ub s eq u en ts ei zu re wa s s up p o rt ed b y r e a s o n ab l e s u s p i ci o n . We 7 t h u s a f f i rm. 8 BACKGRO UND 9 { 2} De fendant Craig Y ork was c onvi cted in m etropolitan cou rt for D W I and an 10 ope n c ont ai ne r vio la tio n. H e ap pe al ed to the dis tr ic t c ourt, arg uin g that the a rr es tin g 11 of fi ce r, D ep uty Raym ond Ma ck ey , did not ha ve r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto supp ort hi s 12 traff ic stop that led to his DW I investigatio n. T he district court affir m ed, holding th at 13 De putyMackey

wa s acting as a com

m unitycar etaker based on a r easonable concern 14 an d di d no t vi ola te the F ourth A m en dm en t. 15 { 3} The district court ac ted on the following facts. De puty Mackey wa s on du ty

at 16 ap pr oxi m at el y

9:0 0 p. m . on June 6, 20 09 when he obs er ve d asil ve r j ee p a t a

sto p 17 sign. He also observed a wom an wa lking along th e road near the guardrail. The area 18 wa s dark and not saf

e for wa lking ; there wa s no sh ould er. De putyMackey had never 19 se enape de str ian onthi s part of the ro ad in m or e than ay ear pa tr oll ing the a re a. T he3

1 dr ive r w as w at ch ing the w om an ; he w as not w at ch ing tr af fi c an d did not

se e D ep uty 2 M a c k e y. 3 { 4} D ep uty

Ma ck ey slo w ed dow n a s he appr oa ch ed the int er se ct io n, and th e 4 stopp ed vehicle m oved forwar d and stopped a gain, a c ar-le ngth bey ond th e stop line. 5 D ep uty Ma ck ey be lie ve d the dr ive r an d th e w om anha d a“ dom es tic dis put e” be ca use 6 he wa s “ certa in” the driver w as “ staring intent ly at her” and wa s “ i n t erested in h er 7 spe ci fi ca lly

a nd n ot the tr af

fi c.” H e w as c onc er

ne d th at the w om anw as a lon e in a 8 da rk , sec lu de d a rea a nd want ed “ to m ak e su re s he was o ka y as a co m m un it y ser vi ce.” 9 H e en ga ge d hi s e m er ge nc y lights a nd a

ppr oa ch ed

the ve hic le a ft er

it e nte re d th e 10 int er se ct ion . Then, a s th e w om anw al ke d ba ck tow ar d th e ve hic le , he a ske d he r to 11 stop and spok e with the driver. As he wa s doin g so, h e o bserved that the driver had 12 an odor of al co hol , blo odsh ot e y es , a nd s lur re d sp ee ch
. A nothe r de puty pe rf orm ed a 13 D W I inv es tig at ion
. 14 { 5} D eput y Mac key te sti fi ed that he a ske d th e dr ive r his r el at ion shi p w iththe 15 wom an, and the driver responded th at “ she was a friend” and that th ey “ h ad an 16 argum ent in the car, and she got o u t to walk hom e. ” T he wom an gave sim ilar 17 inf orm at ion
. 18 { 6} D ur ing the tr ia l i n th e m etro pol itan c ourt, D e f e n d an t m ove d to sup pr es s D ep uty 19 Ma ck ey ’ s te sti m ony

c onc er nin g po st- sto p e ve nts f

or la ck of r ea sona ble sus pic ionto4

1 believe that Def

endant had com

m itted or was com

m itting a cr im e. The m etropolitan 2 co urt de nie d th e m oti on. 3 RIG HT TO APPEAL 4 { 7} As an initial m atter, we address the State’ s argum ent raised in its answer brief 5 tha t c ha llen ge s th is Court ’ s j ur isd ic tio n to he ar appe al s f ro m adis tr ic t c ourt’ s on 6 re co rd r ev ie wof a m etro pol itan co urt de ci sio n. A s th e St at e re co gni ze s, thi s arg um en t 7 w as r ej ec te d in Sta te v . Ca rro ll , 2015-NMC A- 033, ¶ 5, 346 P. 3d 37 2 (“ [T ] his Court 8 has been vested with jurisdiction over appeals in all crim inal actions with the lim ited 9 exception of th o s e where a sentence of death or life im prisonm ent is im

posed. Ha d 10 the Le gislature intend ed to lim it our jurisdiction to prec lude review of the on-record 11 ap pe llate de ci sio ns o f the distr ic t c ourt, w e as sum e it w oul d have e xpl ic itl y don e 12 so .”), cert. gran ted , 2015 -N MC E RT -0 01, 350 P. 3d 92, an d w e de cl ine to re vis it the 13 Ca rro ll

h o l d in g. See State v. Jones , 201 0- N MS C- 012, ¶ 59, 148 N
. M. 1, 229 P
. 3d 14 474 (n oti ng tha t, in the abse nc e of lawto the c ontrary , ade ci sio n f ro m the Co urt of 1 5 A p p ea l s i s “ co n t ro l l i n g ” e v en wh en ce rt i o ra ri h as b ee n g ra n t ed b y t h e S u p r e me 16 Court). 17 APPLICATI ON OF PUBLI C SERVANT DOCTRI NE 18 { 8} The i ss ue be f

or e us i s w he t he r t he di str i c t c ourt pr op e r l y de t e rm i ned that 19 De putyMackey acted as a com m unitycar etaker in detaining Def endant. T he parties5

1 do n ot d isp ute that D ep uty Ma ck ey did not ha ve r ea sona

ble sus pic ionto de ta in 2 De fe n d an twh en h e a ct i v at ed h i s emer g en cy l i g h t s an dap p ro ac h ed De fe n d an t ’s 3 ve hic le
. N or

doe s th e St at e dis put e tha t D ep uty Ma ck ey de ta ine d D ef

en da nt whe n he 4 too k su cha ct ion
. D ef

en dant doe s not

dis put e tha t D ep uty

Ma ck ey ha d r ea sona

ble 5 sus pic ionto de ta in D ef en dant a ft er

he obs er

ve d D ef en da nt’ s odor

of a lc ohol , 6 bloo dsho t ey es, and spurred speech. H owever , an officer who detains an indiv idual 7 while properly

acting as a com

m unitycar etaker does not im plicate const i t u t i o n al 8 se ar cha nd s ei zure pr ovi sio ns. Sc hust er v . Sta te D ep ’t

of Ta xa tio n & R ev en ue , 201 2- 9 NMSC -0 25 , ¶ 26 , 28 3 P .3d 28 8. 10 { 9} W he n a c t i n g a s ac o m m u n i t y c a r e t ak e r , al a we n f

o r c e m e n to f

f i c e r ’ s a c t i ons 11 m ay be e xc ep te d f

ro m se ar ch an d se iz ur e pr inc ipl es und er thr ee se pa rate doc tr ine s: 12 the e m er ge nc y

a id d oc tr ine , the auto m obi le im poun dm e n t

an d i n v e nto ry doc tr ine , a nd 13 th e co m

m un it y care ta ke r orpu bl ic ser va nt do ct rin e. Sta te v . R yo n , 200 5- N MS C- 005, 14 ¶ 25, 137 N
. M. 174 , 108 P
. 3d 1032; Sta te v . She eh an , 201 5- N MC A -0 21, ¶ 10, 344 15 P. 3d 10 64. T he third doctrine, w hich we w ill refer to as the publi c servant doctrine, 16 applies to warrantless searches and seizures of autom obiles and is at issue in th is case. 17 R yo n , 200 5- N MS C- 005, ¶ 26; She eh an , 20 15 -NMCA- 02 1, ¶ 1 2. 18 { 10} “ Whe n de te rm ini ng w he the r a w ar rantl es s se ar chor

se iz ur e is r eas on ab le on 19 the ba sis of

the c om m uni ty c ar et ak er e xc ep tio n, [ anappe llate c ourt] m ust m ea sur e the6

1 publ ic ne ed

a nd i nte re st f

urthe re d by

the pol ic e co nduc t a ga ins t the de gr ee of a nd 2 nature of the intrusio n upo n the privacy of the citizen. ” R

yo n , 200 5- N MS C- 005, ¶

24 3 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). Be ca use the re is a le sse r ex pe ct at ion 4 of pr iv acy in a ve hi cl e on a pu bl ic hi gh way th an th ere i s fo r a p ers on al res id en ce, a 5 ve hic le sto p un de r the pub lic se rv an t do ctri ne r equir es ales se r stand ar d of 6 reas on ab le ne ss th an a ho m e in tru si on u n de r th e em erg en cy aid do ct rin e. Id

. ¶ 26; 7 She eh an , 201 5- N MC A -0 21, ¶ 12. Whe n r ev ie w ing ar

uli ng o n a m oti on t o su

ppr es s, 8 w e re vie wf

ind ing s of fa ct fo r subs tanti al e vid en ce a nd c onc lus ion s of lawde nov o. 9 Id

. ¶ 7. W e “ view the f

acts in the light m ost favorable to the prevailing p arty .” Id

. 10 { 11} T hi s c a se i s no tunlik e Shee han , in w hic h w e re ce ntl y a ddr es se d th e publ ic 11 se rv an t doc tr ine
. I n She eh an , the a rr es tin g of fi ce r, w hil e on p atro l j ust

a ft er m idn igh t, 12 ob se rv ed two pe op le in a v eh ic le pa rk edon th e sh ou ld er o f a ro ad
. Id

. ¶ 2. A lth ough 13 the officer

“ did no t see any

indication that so m et hing violent o r cr im inal had taken 14 place[, ] ” he w as concerned beca use the wom an in the passenger seat w as “ crouched 15 to the sid e w ithhe r he ad ti lte d c om

ple te ly ba ck , ” in a posit ion in whic h “ al tho ugh she 16 m ay have been sleeping, she did no t looklike she was in a slee ping positi on[.] ” Id

. 17 ¶¶ 2 -3 The of

fic er th ou gh t th atsh e was un co ns ci ou s. Id

. ¶ 3. T he dr ive r w as le an ing 18 ov er h er. Id

. ¶ 2. The officer

stopp ed next to the vehicle and in quired if “ they we re 19 okay .” Id

. ¶ 3 Th e d riv er “ res po nd edth atth ey were” a nd an xi ou sl y

tri edto lea ve . Id

.7

1 The off ic er t he n a ct iv at edhi s emergen cy li gh ts an d p ul le d b eh in d t he v e h i c l e . Id

. 2 Whe n he app ro ach ed th e ve hi cl e, th e wom an sp ok e to h im
. Id

. ¶ 4. H ow ev er , the 3 officer sm elled an odor of alcohol com ing from the vehicle that he then sm elled 4 co m ing f

ro m the de fe ndant, w ho, a ft er pe rf orm ing af

ie ld s obr ie ty

te st, w as a rr es te d. 5 Id

. 6 { 12} T he of

fi ce r in She eh an “ re pe at ed ly em phasi ze d duri ng h is t es tim ony that he 7 detained the vehicle due to his concern for [ the wom an’ s] safety .” Id

. ¶ 13. W e he ld 8 tha t the of

fi ce r ha d “ suffici ently

a rt ic ula te d” his spe ci fi c co nc er n “ to p er m it him to 9 detain the vehicle to alleviate that concern.” Id

. 10 { 13} T he te st t o de te rm ine w he the r the publ ic se rv an t doctri ne c re at es a n e xc ep tio n 11 to c onst itu tio na l se arch an d se iz ur e re qui re m en ts i s an ob j ec tiv e one , ba se d on 12 re as ona

ble ne ss. W e loo k to w he the r anof fi ce r ha s st oppe d a ve hic le “ ba se d ona 13 reasonable concern f

or public safety .” R

yo n , 2005 -N MS C- 005, ¶ 30. A s in She eh an , 14 D ep uty

Ma ck ey “ suf fi ci en tly a rt ic ula te d” a re as ona

ble co nc er

n for the pub lic sa fe ty 15 in d et ai nin g D ef

en dant. 201 5- N MC A -0 21, ¶ 13. 16 { 14} De putyMackey testified that the wom an wa s walking alone on an un safe road 17 w ithno s idewal k or shoulde r. I t w as dark
. D ef en da nt, w hil e sto ppe d a t the 18 intersection, wa s focused entirely on the wom an, ignoring traffic and did n ot not ice 19 D ep uty

Ma ck ey ’ s ve hic le ne xt t o hi m . D ef en da nt m ove d in to and s top pe d in D ep uty8

1 Ma ck ey ’ s lane of

tr af fi c. D ep uty Ma ck ey te sti fi ed tha t, ba se d on his obs er va tio ns o f 2 D e f e n d a n t ’ s d e m e a n o r i n l o o k i n g a t t h e w o m a n a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f the 3 wom an ’s walk in g o n a da rk , un sa fe ro ad , he c on cl ud edth at“ th ere was d e f i n i t e l y a 4 di sp ut e be tw ee n th em to the poi nt whe re she f el t i t ne ce ssary

to w al k aw ay . ” He 5 spe ci fi ca lly

te sti fi ed that he inv es tig at ed

the sit ua tio n ba se d onhis sa fe ty c onc er ns. 6 { 15} Fr om D e p u t y M a c k e y ’ s t e s t i m o n y , t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n a n d d i s t r i c t c o u rtc oul d 7 re as ona

bly c onc lud e tha t D ep uty Mac ke y took th e ac tio n th at he did ba se d onhis 8 co nc er n f or tho se pr es en t, part ic ularl y the w om an . I t w as r ea sona ble fo r hi m

to 9 co nc lud e, ba se d onthe dark ne ss and the uns af

e loc at ion , that the w om anle ft the 10 ve hi c l e b e c aus e o f

ad om e st i c d i sp ut e . I tw a s a l so r e a so na bl e f or h i m t o c on clude, 11 ba se d onD ef

en dant’ s de m eanor , that the re w as pot en tia l f or f urthe r dom es t i c d i str es s. 12 Moreover, the wom an’ s loc at i o n o n the road, e ven thou gh she did not ind icate that 13 she ne ed ed

a ssi stanc e, w as e noug h to r ea sona bly inv oke D ep uty Mac ke y ’ s sa fe ty 14 concerns. T he fact that De puty Mackey ’ s concerns were m ore focused on the wom an 15 rathe r than onD ef

en dant, a s D ef

en da nt arg ue s, is not

de te rm ina tiv e. A lth oughthe 16 w om anw as m or e cl earl y a t r isk , D ef

en da nt w as pr es en t and an in te gr al part of the 17 circum stances givi ng rise to Deputy Mackey ’ s concerns. I t would have been 18 ne gl ect fu l fo r Dep ut y Mac ke y to ha ve ig no redDefen da nt ’s in vo lv em en t. See Sta te 19 v. F unde rbur g , 200 8- N MS C- 026, ¶

32, 144 N
. M. 37, 183 P. 3d 9 22 ( sta tin g th at , in9

1 “ w ei ghi ng the of

fi ce r’ s in tr

usi on on [th e d] ef

en da nt’ s pr iva cy , [ anappe llate c ourt] 2 shou ld as k [i tse lf

] w ha t oth er ac tio ns a re as ona ble of fi ce r w oul d be e xpe ct ed

to ta ke 3 un de r si m il ar ci rcu m st an ces , if n ot th os e ta ke n” ). 4 { 16} W e note De fendant’ s argum ents con ce rn ing th e lack of obj ective fa cts that 5 the re w as adom es tic dis put e goi ng o n and that De puty Ma ck ey a ct ed m er el y upo n hi s 6 sur m ise
. D ef en dant d em an ds a

gr eate r standard

than r equir ed
. A s w e ha ve dis cu sse d, 7 th e st an da rdis an ob

jecti ve on e b as edon reas on ab le ne ss . R yo n , 200 5- N MSC -005, 8 ¶ 30. D ep uty

Ma ck ey was r equir ed

to ar tic ula te obj ec tiv e fa ct s th at c oul d le ad

the 9 fa ct fi nde r to c onc lud e tha t D ep uty Ma ck ey ha d ar ea sona

ble sa fe ty c onc er n. Th e 10 m etro pol itan c ou rt, as f ac tf ind er , c onc lud ed

that D ep uty

Ma ck ey ha d ar ea sona

ble 1 1 sa fe t y c o n c e rn , a s d i d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt . V i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g ht m ost 12 favorable to the State as prevailing party , ther e w as substant ial evidence to supp ort 13 th e m et ro po li ta n and di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on s. Sta te v . U rio ste , 200 2- N MS C- 023, 14 ¶ 6, 132 N
. M. 592, 52 P. 3d 964 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t the appe llate c ourts “ vie wthe f ac ts 1 5 i n t h e man n erm o s tfa v o ra b l e t o t h e p re v ai l i n g p ar t y an d d ef ert o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 16 finding s of fac t if substanti al evidence exists to sup port thos e findings”). 17 { 17} G ive n th at

D ep uty Ma ck ey did not ina ppr opr ia te ly de ta in D ef

en da nt, D ep uty 18 Mackey

could then p roceed to investigate ba s ed on his rea sonable su spicion that 19 D ef en dant h ad

be endr ink ing a nd dri vin g.10

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 18} W e af

fi rm the r uli ng o f the dis tr ic t c ourt. 3 { 19} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
4

__ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 5 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
6 WE CO NCUR:
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 8 C Y N TH IAA . F R

Y , Ju dg e
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 10 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e