1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: A ugus t 6, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 4545 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 EUGE NE CHACON, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 11 Sh er i A . R ap ha el son , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 John J. W oykovs ky , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 C. David Henderson, A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} T his c as e inv olv es the c onst itu tio na lity of a se co nd s tr ip s earc h of D ef en dant 4 E uge ne Ch ac on i n w hich co rr ec tio na l of fi ci al s a t the S an taF e Co unty A dul t 5 De tention Fac ility

(SF CAD F) discovered h er oin on De fendant’ s person. W e ar e 6 required, as a m atter of f irst im pression, to determ ine the ap p ro p ri at e st andard 7 re qui re d to pe rf

orm a se co nd str ip se ar ch of a n in m at e w ho h as ha d no c ont ac t w ith 8 an y one out sid e of

the j ai l. W e hol d tha t suc h a se ar ch re qui re s r ea sona ble sus pic ion 9 an d t h at t h e s t ri p s ea rc h o f D ef en d an twa s s up p o rt ed b y re as o n ab l e s u s p i ci o n . We 1 0 t h e r e f o r e a f f i rm. 11 I. BACK GROUND 12 { 2} O n th e ev en ing of Ju ne 5, 2013 , D ef

en dant w as boo ke d in to S FC A D F on 13 ch ar ge s th at

inc lud ed tr af fi ck ing ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce . I t i s th e fa ci lity ’ s po lic y to 14 pe rf orm a“ vis ua l e xa m ina tio n of a n in div idu al ’ s nake d bo dy f or w ea pons , dr ugs or 15 oth er c ontra band[ , ] ” w hic h w e he re in r ef er to as a“ str ip s earc h,” on a ll ind ivi dua ls 16 ar re ste d f or c ert ai n char ge s, inc lud ing dr ug tra ff ic kin g c harg es . P ur suant t o th e 17 pol ic y , D ef

en dant w as str ip se ar ch ed dur ing the book ing pr oc es s. T w o of fi ce rs too k 1 8 D e f e n d a n t i n t o t h e r e s t r o o m w h e r e D e f e n d a n t w a s r e qu i r e d t o r e m o v e h is c lot hin g 19 one it em

a t a ti m e, le anove r, a nd c ough

. D ur ing thi s se ar ch , the of fi ce rs fo und a blu e2

1 rubber glove, but the record does not ind icate w here the off icers f ound the glove. 2 D ef en dant w as the n take n to a book ing int ak e ce ll, w he re he w as ke pt unti l the ne xt 3 da y . 4 { 3} T he f

oll ow ing m orni ng , J un e 6, 201 3, D ef en dant w as se nt t o an “ or ie nta tio n 5 pod” called the Alpha 300 Pod, wher e he w as to be kept unt il classified to an 6 ap pr opr ia te hou sin g un it ac co rd ing to his status ( i. e. , thr eat lev el ). T he A lph a 300 Po d 7 is a tw o- tie re d un it w ithalarg e co m m on r oom

on the bot tom

f loo r. O ne w al l of

the 8 pod ha s tw o f

loo rs of c el ls, w ithsix ce lls on ea ch fl oor . T he odd num be re d c el ls ( 301 9 thr ough311 ) ar e sit

ua te d onthe botto m flo or , whi le the e ve n nu m be re d c el ls ( 302 10 thr ough312 ) ar e on the top f loo r. The cells a ll ha ve doo rs w ithanarr oww ind ow 11 running vertically

in the m iddle of the doo r. 12 { 4} On the m orning of June 7, 2013, L ieutenant Charlie V aldez, a shift com m ander 13 at S FC A D F, r ec ei ve d an an on y m ous tip that se ve ra l i nm at es in the A lph a 300 Po d 1 4 h a d d r

u g p a r ap h e rn a l i a . B e t w e e n 7 : 1 2 a . m . a n d 8 : 4 8 a . m . , s e v e r a l i n m a t e s in t he 15 Alpha 3 00 P od

w e r e m ov i ng f

r om t he i r c e l l s t o t he c om

m ona r e aa nd

t o other 16 inm at es ’ c el ls, inc lud ing 301 , 303 , 305 , 307 , a nd 311, w he re the y w oul d r em ai n f

or 17 a brief period of tim e. They woul d t h en briefly

return to their own c ells before 18 re pe at ing thi s pr oc es s. O n se ve ra l oc ca sio ns, a n in m at e fr om c el l 30 1—the ce ll in 19 w hic h D ef

en dant an d an oth er inm at e w er e he ld— ap pe ar ed to g o in sid e ce lls 303 a nd3

1 307, stay

ins ide f or aw hil e, r et

ur n to his ro om , a nd g o ba ck int o on e of

tho se r oom s. 2 Of ficer Jo se phC r os s, t he f

l oo r o f f i c e r , n ot i c e d t hi s a c t i vi t y a nd d e e m e d i tu nu su al 3 an d s us pi ci ou s. 4 { 5} The inm at es ’ be ha vio r co m bin ed w iththe a nony

m ous tip pr om

pte d th e 5 co rr ec tio na l of

fi ce rs to en te r the pod an d dir ec t the inm at es to lin e up ag ai nst a w al l 6 in the c om

m on are a. O ff

ic er Cr oss en te re d cel l 303 and disc ove re d its tw o oc cu pants , 7 neither of w hom

we re D efendant, to be in poss ession of d rugs. Major Nelson Abeyta, 8 the c hie f of

se curi ty , not ic ed

O ff ic er Cr oss e sc ortin g inm at es an d ente re d th e A lph a 9 300 Pod to as sis t hi m . O ff ic er Cr oss inf

orm ed Ma j or Abe ytaof

w ha t ha d j ust 10 ha ppe ne d, a nd i de nti fi ed

to Majo r Abe ytathe inm at es w ho w er e en ga gin g inthe 11 unus ua l and s uspi ci ous be ha vio r w er e in the a re a of c el l 30 3 and s houl d th er ef or e be 12 str ip s earc he d. 13 { 6} D ef

en dant w as one of

the inm at es O ff

ic er Cr oss ide nti fi ed

. Ma

j or Abe ytatoo k 14 De fendant into a m op closet for privacy and directed h im to rem ove his cloth es, lif t 15 his a rm s and t on gu e, le anove r, hol d hi s te sti cl es , squ at , spr ea d hi s bu tto ck s, a nd 16 co ugh. Whe n D ef

en dant s qua tte d and c ough ed , Ma j or Abe yta spotte d a stri ng f ro m 17 De fendant’ s anal cavity . Maj or Abeyta t old De fendant to either “ give up” what he had 18 or be s en t to adr

y c el l ( i. e. , ac el l w ithe ith er no p lum bin g f ixt ur es or plu m bin g 19 fi xture s th at

c an be tur ne d off

. D ef en dant w as co m

pli an t and pull ed a “ bla ck tar[ -] lik e4

1 ro ck ” w ra

ppe d inpla sti c fr om

his a na l c av ity

a nd g av e it to M aj or

Abe yta . T es tin g 2 co nf irm ed that the pla sti c co nta ine d he ro in. 3 { 7} Charged w ith possess ion of a controlled su bstance (heroin), De fendant filed 4 a m otion to supp ress the heroin seized from his bod y , a sserting that th e sear ch 5 violated th e Fourth Am endm ent of the United State s Consti t u t i on and Article I I, 6 Section 4 of the Ne w Me xico Const ituti on . Following an evidentiary hearing in which 7 the f or eg oin g f

ac ts w er e pr es en te d, the dis tr ic t cour t deni ed D ef en dant’ s m oti on. T he 8 dis tr ic t cou rt ru le d th at r ea sona ble sus pic ionw as the standard und er w hic h th e 9 constitu tionalit y of the search wa s to be m easured and concluded that the ev i d ence 10 dem onstr at ed that the search w as suppo rted by rea sonable su spicion . F ollowing a jury 11 tr ia l, D ef

en dant w as f

ound gui lty a nd a ppe al s. 12 II. DISC US SION 13 { 8} Defen da nt do es no t co nt en d t ha t th e fir st st rip se arch was un co ns ti tu ti on al

. See 14 F lor en ce v. B d. of Ch ose n F re eh old er s , 566 U
. S. 318 , 322 -2 3 ( 2012 ) (u phol din g th e 15 co nst itu tio na lity

of aj ai l’ s po licy

r equir ing astr ip s earc h of e ve ry a rr es te e upon 16 his/h er a dm issio n to the jail). 17 { 9} De fendant does, h owever , argue that the second strip search of his person was 18 unc onst itu tio na l un de r the Fo urth A m en dm en t to the U nit ed St at es Co nst itu tio n and 19 A rt ic le II , Se ct ion 10 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. T his a rg um en t r equir es us t o5

1 fi rs t de te rm ine the standard f or de ci din g th e co nst itu tio na l r ea sona ble ne ss o f the str ip 2 se ar chof

apr etri al de ta ine e w ho w as str ip s ea rc he d up on b ooki ng, ha s r em ai ne d in 3 the se al ed

c or re ct ion al f

ac ili ty e nvironm en t w ith out

a ny c ont ac t e xte rn al to the 4 co rr ec tio na l fa ci lity , an d is the n subj ec te d to ase co nd s tr ip s earc h. T his is a que sti on 5 of fir st im pr es si on in New Mex ic o. 6 A. The C onstitut ional Standard 7 { 10} T he F ourth Am en dm en t gu ar an te es the r igh t t o be f re e fr om “ unr ea sona

ble 8 se ar ch es a nd s ei zure s. ” U
. S. Co nst . a m en d. I V
. O ne of the m ost

w ei ghty 9 co nsi de ra

tio ns i n de te rmini ng c onst itutio na l r easo na bl en es s i n t he co rrec tiona l f ac ili ty 10 co nt e xt is in te rn al sec ur it y . See H udso n v. Palm er , 468 U
. S. 517 , 524 ( 1984 ) 11 (c onc lud ing that, w hil e co rr ec tio na l f ac ili ti es are no t be y ond the r ea chof the 12 Const itu tio n, “ im

pr iso nm en t c ar

ri es w ithit

the c ir cu m sc ri pti on o r los s of m an y 13 signi ficant rights” m ade “ necessary , a s a practical m atter, to a ccom m odate a m

yriad 14 of instit ution al needs and objectives of prison facilities, chief am ong which is int ernal 15 security ” (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted)). How ever, incarce rated 16 ind ivi du al s d o n ot for fei t al l co ns ti tu ti on al pro te ct io ns by reaso n o f th ei r co nf inem ent. 17 Turner v. Safley , 482 U. S. 78, 84 (1987) (“ Prison walls do not form a barr ier 18 separating prison in m ates fr om the protections of the Cons t i t ut i on . ” )

. C ou

r t s the refor e 1 9 r e c o g n i z e t h a tp r i s o n e r s h a v e al i mi t e dF o u rt h Ame n d men tr i g h tt o b o d i l y p r i v a c y.6

1 Se e B el l v

. W

olf ish , 441 U
. S. 520, 558 ( 1979 ) (addressing visual bodycavity searc hes 2 of inm at es a nd a ssu m ing “ inm at es , both c on vi cte d pr iso ne rs a nd p re tr ia l de ta ine es , 3 retain som e Fourth Am endm ent rights up on comm itm ent to a corre ctions facility ”); 4 Co vi no v . P atr iss i , 967 F. 2d 73 , 78 (2d Cir. 1992 ) (“ [W ] e have little d o u b t that 5 soc ie ty is pr ep ar ed

to re co gni ze a s r ea sona

ble the r et en tio n of a lim ite d ri ght of bod ily 6 pr iv acy even in th e p ris on co nt ex t.”)

. 7 { 11} T hus, w hil e co urts are ne ce ssari ly de fe re nti al to co rr ec tio na l f ac ili ty 8 adm inistrators in p olicies and practices they ad o p t t hat, in their j udgm ent, are 9 necessary

“ to preserve internal order and discipl ine and to m aintain inst itutio nal 10 security [, ] ” B el l , 441 U
. S. a t 54 7, co ur ts re m ai n r es pons ibl e fo r pr ote ct ing the 11 co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f pr is on ers . See Procunier v. M artin ez , 416 U
. S. 396 , 405 -0 6 12 (1974) (stating th at feder al cou rts will discharge their duty to protect constitu tional 13 rig h ts when prison regulation s or practice s offend fundam ental constitu tional 14 gu aran te es ), ov errul ed on o the r gr ound

s by T h o r n b u r gh v . A bbot t , 490 U
. S. 401 , 15 41 3- 14 (19 89 ). 16 { 12} W e the re fo re r equir e, c onsi ste nt w iththe F ourth A m en dm e n t , tha t se ar ch es a nd 17 seizures of prisoners be re asonable und er a ll the fa ct s and circum stances in which 18 they are perform ed. I n m aking th is determ ination , w e engage in a “balance betw een7

1 the publ ic and private interests at stake. ” St at e v. W il li ams , 201 1- N MS C- 026, ¶ 20, 2 149 N
. M. 729 , 255 P
. 3d 3 07. 3 { 13} The public interests at stake are the necessity for m aintaining the institu tional 4 se cu rit y

an d p res erv in g i nt ern al ord er an d d is ci pl in e o f th e co rrec ti on al faci li ty. B el l , 5 441 U
. S. at 547. T his ne ce ssari ly inc lud es de te ct ing a nd d et er ri ng the pos se ssi on o f 6 co nt rab an d su ch as drug s and weap on s with in th e co rrec ti on al faci li ty. Florence , 566 7 U. S. at 3 28. T hat publ ic interest j ustifies pol ic ie s pr ovi din g fo r str ip s earc he s a t po int s 8 of en try i n t o d e t en ti on faci li ti es wit ho ut an y qu an tu m of s us pi ci on . Se e id

. a t 33 0 9 (holdin g that strip searches can be conducted on all new inm ates upona dm iss ion to 10 the de te nti on f

ac ili ty ); B el l , 441 U
. S. a t 558, 560 (h old ing tha t str ip searc he s c anbe 11 co nduc te d ona n in m at e aft er ev ery c ont ac t vi sit w ithsom eo ne f ro m out sid e the 12 fa ci lity ); P ow el l v

. B arr et t , 541 F
. 3d 1 298, 130 0, 131 4 (1 1th Ci r. 2008 ) (i nte rp re tin g 13 the S upr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in B el l to p er m it a str ip s earc h wi tho ut r ea sona ble 14 su sp ic io n w he n c ondu ct ed dur ing “ the poi nt- of

-e ntr y boo kin g pr oc es s be fo re [ the 15 inm at es ] w er e pla ce d in to the ge ne ra l j ai l po pul at i o n ” ). T he pol ic ie s a llo w ing the str ip 16 searches in these poin ts-of-entry cases are j ustified on the basis that they are needed 1 7 t o p r e v e n tc o n t r ab a n df r o m en te rin g t h e c o rr e c t i o na l fa ci li ti es . Se e F lorence , 566 U. S. 18 at 333- 35 (e xpl ai nin g the pur pose of the f ac ili ty ’ s po lic y

w as to pr ev en t pe rs ons fr om 19 introdu cing prohib ited item s into th e fa cility ); B el l , 441 U
. S. at 559 (r ec ogni zi ng the8

1 facility ’ s need to deter inm ates fr om sm uggl ing mon ey, d ru gs, w eapons, and other 2 contraband into the fac ility by concealing them

in the inm ates’ bodycavities). 3 { 14} Whil e the ne ed

f or ade te nti on f

ac ili ty to de te r an d de te ct

the i ntr oduc tio n of 4 co ntr ab an d is at its pe ak at poi nts of e ntr y , that i nst itu tio na l ne ed

dim ini she s w he n a 5 st rip sea rch tak es pl ace o ut si de a po in t o f en try. Se e A rru da v. F air , 710 F
. 2d 8 86, 6 890 (1st Cir. 1983 ) (Ma letz, J., concurring in part an d d i s s en t ing in part). Searches 7 w ith in the c or

re ct ion al f

ac ili ty to dis co ve r the c ir cu lati on o f co ntr ab an d, w hil e 8 ce rt ai nly

im portant, a re not

a cc om panie d by the sa m e ci rc um stanc es that f ac ili ta te the 9 s m uggl ing of contraband in to a fac ility . Acorre ctional facility ’ s instit ution al 10 j ustification to conduct a second strip s earch i s fu rt h er reduced when it takes place 11 sh or tl y aft er a pr io r st rip se arch an d n o c on tra ba nd was d is co ve red

. Se e, e . g. , N. G. v. 12 Co nne ct ic ut , 382 F. 3d 225, 234 (2nd Cir. 2004 ) (holdin g that a second strip s earch 13 of aj uve nil e inm at e to s earc h f or am iss ing pe nc il w as un reas ona ble be ca use the 14 inm ate had alrea dy been strip searched upon her initial adm issio n to the fac ility ); 15 Hodges v. Stanl ey , 712 F
. 2d 3 4, 35- 36 ( 2d C ir

. 198 3) ( pe r curi am ) (h old ing that a 16 str ip s earch of an inm at e unde r co nti nuou s e sc ort— co nduc te d sh ortly a ft er apr ior 17 str ip s earc h—w as unn ec es sary a nd unc onst itu tio na l be ca use the re w as no p oss ibi lity 18 tha t the inm at e co uld ha ve obt ai ne d an d co nc ea le d co ntr ab an d in the int er im ); Gree n 19 v. M art in , 224 F. Supp. 3d 154, 164 (D . C onn. 2016 ) (“ [W ] hen two strip searches are9

1 conducted clos e in tim e and the inm ate had no opportunit y to obtain contraband after 2 the f ir st s earch, then the se co nd s tr ip s earc h m ay be unr ea sona

ble a nd 3 unc onst itu tio na l be ca

use the inm at e la ck ed an oppo rt uni ty to o bta in c ontra

band i n th e 4 tim e in betwee n the searches. ”); J ea n-La ure nt v
. W

ilk er son , 4 3 8 F
. S up p. 2d 3 18, 5 321, 323 (S .D. N.Y. 2006) (holdin g that a second strip search of an 6 inm at e— co nduc te d af

te r the inm at e w as pr ev iou sly str ip s earc he d, handc uf

fe d, a nd 7 escorted to another location—was unreasonable). 8 { 15} T he f

or eg oin g public in te res ts m ust be ba lanc ed

a ga ins t the pr iva te int er es ts 9 at stake

. A s w e ha ve a lr ea dy not ed , inm at es ha ve aF ourth A m en dm en t r igh t t o th e 10 pr iva cy

of the ir bod ie s. U ndou

bte dly , a nd w ith out que sti on, str ip se ar ch es inv ad e an d 11 vio la te that pr iva cy

int er es t. O ur ow n S upr em e Co urt ha s de cl ar ed that no m atte r how 12 pr of es sio na lly a nd c ourte ousl y

astr ip s earc h is c ondu ct ed , it is em barr as sin g, 13 hu m il ia ti ng , an d offe ns iv e to pe rs on a l d ig ni ty. Sta te v . G arc ia , 199 3- N MC A -1 05, 14 ¶ 5, 116 N. M. 87, 860 P. 2d 217. Regardless o f whether a strip sear ch is condu cted at 15 a point of entry

or inside the secured are a of a detention facility , they both in vade an 16 inm at e’ s pe rs ona l bo dil y pr iva cy to ane qua l e xte nt. 17 { 16} In balancing the com peting in terests at stake, we agree with the district court 18 tha t the ap pr opr ia te standard fo r de te rm ini ng the c onst itu tio na l r ea sona ble ne ss o f the 19 second strip search of De fendant is r easonable susp icion. At one extrem e, courts m ay10

1 req ui re p ro ba bl e cau se as t he ap pr op ria te st an da rd

. Se e Co m m onw ea lth v. T hom as , 2 708 N
. E
. 2d 6 69, 673 ( Ma ss. 199 9) ( “ [W ]e co nc lud e tha t pr oba ble c au se is the 3 appropriate standard to applyto strip and vi s u al body cavity searc hes.”) . H owever , 4 our vie wis tha t, giv enthe e xig en ci es inh er en t in a de te nti on f ac ili ty ’ s e nvi ro nm en t, 5 suc h athr es hol d ti lts the ba lanc e too f ar in fav or of

the pr iva cy

int er es t and i s 6 the re fo re “ anunr ea lis tic al ly hig h stan da rd of

pr oof ” fo r co rr ec tio na l of

fi ci al s to 7 sa ti sf y . A rru da , 710 F. 2d at 890 (Maletz , J., concurring in part and dissenti ng in p art). 8 A t the oth er ex tr em e, re qui ri ng no quant um of sus pic iongiv es c or

re ct ion al of

fi ci al s 9 unl im ite d, unr ev ie wab le dis cr et ionto co nduc t i nhe re ntl y de gr ad ing body

c av ity 10 se ar ch es of

a ll inm at es . T his standard fa ils to ta ke int o ac co unt the pr iva cy

int er es ts 11 at stake

. W e ag re e tha t the m idd le gr ound , r ea sona ble sus pic ion“ is f

le xib le e noug h 12 to afford the full m easure of [F] ourth [A] m endm ent protection withou t posin g an 13 insup erable barrier

to the exercise of a ll search and seizure powers. ” W il li ams , 201 1- 14 NMS C-026, ¶ 13 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). S uch a sta n dard 15 re as ona

bly a cc om m oda te s c or

re ct ion al of

fi ci als’ se curi ty

c onc er ns a s w el l a s th e 16 pr iva cy

r igh t of a n in m at e who ha s ha d no c ont ac t ou tsi de the j ai l and h as a lr ea dy 17 be en su bjec te d t o a st rip sea rch

. 18 { 17} Inba lanc ing the pub lic int er es ts and p ri va te int er es ts at st ak e, w e hol d th at the 19 second strip search of De fe n dant m ust be sup ported by

a re asonable sus picion th at11

1 D ef en dant h ad

c ontra band o n or in his body cavity . D ef en dant w as sub

j ec t t o af ull 2 str ip s earc h up on b ei ng b ooke d in to the S FC A D F, an d no dr ugs or oth er c ontra band 3 w as f ound

. D ef

en dant w as the n pl ac ed

in a book ing ce ll w he re he re m ai ne d un til he 4 w as pla ce d ina n o rie ntati on p od w ithoth er inm at es a w ai tin g th ei r hous ing 5 cl as sif ic at ion

. T he ins tit

uti ona l ne ed

to co nduc t a str ip se ar ch w as dim ini she d at thi s 6 poi nt. L es s th anf

orty -eight hour s late r, a nd w ith out ha vin g ha d any

c ont ac t w ith 7 an y one out sid e the or ie nta tio n pod, D ef en dant w as sub

j ec te d to ase co nd s tr ip s earc h. 8 Requiring t h e SFCAD F offic ers to have a r easonable susp icion that Defe ndant had 9 c o n t ra b an do n o r i n h i s b o d y ca v i t y s t ri k es a p ro p erb al an ce b et we en De fe n d an t ’s 10 Fourth Am endm ent right to hi s bodyprivacy , and the need of the SFCA DF officer s 11 to m ai nta in i nst itu tio na l se curi ty a nd pr es er

ve the int er

na l or de r an d di sc ipl ine of the 12 facility . W e now turn to whether the sec ond st rip searc h of De fendant wa s supp orted 13 by r ea sona ble sus pic ion

. 14 B. R ea son ab le S us pi ci on A na lys is 15 { 18} Reaso na ble su spi ci on e xis ts “ w he n th e of fi ce r be co m es a w ar e of

spe ci fi c 16 ar tic ula ble f ac ts tha t, j udge d obj ec tiv el y , w oul d le ad ar ea sona

ble pe rs on t o be lie ve 17 crim inal activity occurred orwa s o ccurring.” State v. M artin ez , 201 8- N MS C- 007, 18 ¶ 10, 410 P. 3d 18 6 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). “ Unsupported 19 intui tion and inarticulate hunches are not sufficient.” Sta te v . G arc ia , 2009-NMS C-12

1 046, ¶ 43, 147 N
. M. 134 , 217 P. 3d 1 032 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 2 om itt ed ). In de te rm ini ng wh ethe r the re is re as ona ble sus pic ion fo r a searc h, w e as se ss 3 the tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es ins te ad of lo ok in g a t e ac h in div idu al f ac tor in a 4 v a c u u m o n i t s o wn. Sta te v . Ne al , 200 7- N MS C- 043, ¶ 28, 142 N
. M. 176 , 164 P
. 3d 5 57. 6 { 19} O ur

r ev ie wof

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng o n th e m otion t o su ppr es s pr es en ts a 7 m ix ed qu es ti on of fact an d l aw. Martinez , 201 8-NMS C-007, ¶ 8. First, in our review 8 of the fac ts, “ we defer

to the district court’ s finding s of fac t if substanti al evidence 9 ex ist s to sup port those f ind ing s and vie w the fa ct s in the m an ne r m ost favor ab le to the 10 prevail i n g p ar t y. ” Id

. ¶ 12 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). I n th is 11 re gard , w he n the ev ide nc e is c onf lic tin g, w e ind

ulg e in a ll re as ona

ble pr es um

pti ons 12 in f av or of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng, dis re gard ing a ll ev ide nc e an d in fe re nc es to the 13 contrary , and whe n evidence is uncon tradicted, we presum e the district court believed 14 th e u nc on tra di ct edev id en ce, u nl es s i t in di cat es to th e co nt rary on t he reco rd

. Sta te 15 v . J ason L. , 2 0 00 -NMSC -0 18 , ¶¶ 10 -1 1, 1 29 N.M. 11 9, 2 P.3d 85 6. Se co nd ly, we 16 re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ppl ic at ionof

the lawto tho se f

ac ts d e novo to de te rm ine 17 whether the search or se i zure w as constitu tionallyrea sonable. Martinez , 201 8- 18 N MS C- 007, ¶

8.13

1 { 20} W e co nc lud e tha t un de r our standard of r ev ie w , the ev id en ce s uppo rt s th e 2 district court’ s con cl usion that the second strip search of D efendant w as suppo rted 3 by r ea sona ble sus pic ion

. D ef

en dant w as boo ke d in to SFCADF onc harg es of 4 tr af fi ck ing ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce a nd s tr ip s earc he d. D ef en dant w as th enhe ld i n a 5 book ing int ak e ce ll unt il the ne xt m or nin g, w he n he w as tr an sf

er re d to the or ie nta tio n 6 pod. T ha t m or

nin g, the shi ft co m

m an de r re ce ive d ana nony m ous tip that i nm at es in 7 the or ie nta tio n po d w he re D ef en dant w as hou se d ha d drug s. T he fl oor of fi ce r in the 8 orientation po d also obs erved the inm ates engaging in what w as described as unusu al 9 an d su spi ci ous be ha vio r an d c ongr eg at in g, and it w as de ci de d to se ar chone of the 10 ce lls in w hic h in m at es were se ene nte ri ng and l eavin g. T ha t se ar chr es ult ed in the 11 dis co ve ry tha t its oc cu pants w er e in poss es sio n of dr ugs, w hic h co rr ob or at ed the 12 an ony m ous tip

. T he se fa ct s and i nf er en ce s vi ew ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the 13 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng e sta bli sh a c onst itutio na lly

suf fi ci en t r ea sona

ble sus picio n to 14 su pp or t t he sec on d s tri p s earc h o f Defen da nt . Se e H udso n , 468 U
. S. at 526 (h old ing 15 tha t the F ourth A m en dm en t do es not appl y to the se ar chof

apr iso ne r’ s c el l) ; W

ood 16 v. Cl em ons , 89 F
. 3d 9 22, 929 ( 1st Ci r. 199 6) (“ A lth ough ana nony m ous tip , standi ng 17 al one , m ay

ty pic al ly f ai l t o c re at e re as ona

ble sus pi cion, a n anony

m ous tip that i s 18 corroborated in som e m easure by actual fa cts or by

other sources m ay

be enough.”).14

1 { 21} De fendant’ s rem aining ar gum ents w ere either not preser ved o r w ere 2 u n d e v e l o p e d , a n dw e d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e m. 3 III. CO NC LUS ION 4 { 22} T he or de r of

the dis tr ic t c ourt de ny ing D ef en dant’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s is 5 af fi rm ed

. 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 7 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e 8 WE CO NCUR:

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e

11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 12 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e