This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-39974

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOSE GURROLA and JENNIFER

MORGAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY

George P. Eichwald, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General

Albuquerque, NM 

for Appellant

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

MJ Edge, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM 

for Appellees

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HENDERSON, Judge.

{1} The State appeals from the district court’s order granting a motion to suppress 

brought by James Morgan, who is not a party to this appeal, for evidence obtained 

through his unlawful seizure, which Jennifer Morgan and Jose Gurrola (collectively, 

Defendants) joined. On appeal, the State contends that Defendants did not assert a 

violation of their own constitutional rights in joining the motion to suppress, and 
therefore the district court erred in granting suppression. We agree and therefore 

reverse and remand. 

DISCUSSION

{2} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and 

fact. We review factual determinations for substantial evidence and legal determinations 

de novo.” State v. Ketelson, 2011-NMSC-023, ¶ 9, 150 N.M. 137, 257 P.3d 957. 

{3} “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other 

constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.” State v. Crocco, 2014-NMSC016, ¶ 16, 327 P.3d 1068 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[S]ince the 

exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, it 

is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated 

to benefit from the rule’s protections.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

In this case, the district court did not conclude that Defendants were seized. 

Additionally, Defendants did not assert below that their own constitutional rights were 

implicated. Instead, Defendants merely joined James Morgan’s motion to suppress, 

which was solely premised on an allegation that he was unlawfully seized. Failing to 

establish that they personally were seized, Defendants cannot now seek to ratify the 

suppression of evidence obtained from the alleged illegal seizure of another. See 

Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174-75 (1969) (“There is no necessity to 

exclude evidence against one defendant in order to protect the rights of another. No 

rights of the victim of an illegal search are at stake when the evidence is offered against

some other party.”). Therefore, the district court erred in suppressing the evidence, 

obtained through the seizure of James Morgan, as being used against Defendants 

when Defendants did not argue, and the court did not find, that their Fourth Amendment 

or Article II, Section 10 rights were violated.1

{4} On appeal, Defendants argue that this Court should affirm the district court’s 

order of suppression because they were seized in violation of their Article II, Section 10 

rights under the New Mexico Constitution. “[A]n appellate court can uphold the [district] 

court’s decision if it is right for any reason.” State v. Wilson, 1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 17, 125 

N.M. 390, 962 P.2d 636. However, we will affirm the district court as right for any reason 

only “so long as the circumstances do not make it unfair to the appellant to affirm.” State 

v. Serna, 2018-NMCA-074, ¶ 29, 429 P.3d 1283 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). “It would be unfair to an appellant to affirm on a fact-dependent ground not 

raised below because it is improper for an appellate court to engage in fact-finding and 

because the appellant would have lacked an opportunity to present admissible evidence 

relating to the fact.” State v. Marquez, 2023-NMSC-029, ¶ 32, 539 P.3d 303 (alterations, 

internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Accordingly, “[a]ppellate courts usually 

apply the right for any reason basis of affirmance to strictly legal questions.” Wilson, 

1998-NMCA-084, ¶ 17. 

 

1Nothing in this opinion precludes Defendants from bringing a motion to suppress on remand.
{5} Defendants’ argument in support of affirmance challenging the district court’s 

determination that they were not seized would have this Court uphold the district court’s 

suppression order while reversing its conclusion that there was no seizure. “[W]hether a 

person has been seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is a mixed question of law 

and fact.” State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 19, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856. In this 

case, Defendants joined the motion of another defendant, who is not a party to this 

case, but did not file separate motions alleging that their constitutional rights were 

violated due to an unlawful seizure. Defendants did not argue at the hearing on the 

motion to suppress that they were seized. Consequently, the district court was not 

tasked with adjudicating the facts bearing on this issue. Where, as here, critical facts 

that bear on whether Defendants were seized were not developed below, it is improper 

for an appellate court to affirm the district court on unpreserved grounds. See State v. 

Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶ 12, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (declining to apply the 

right for any reason doctrine where the trial court’s ruling required a determination on a 

disputed factual issue). Therefore, we conclude that it would be unfair to apply the right 

for any reason doctrine in this case. 

CONCLUSION

{6} We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

{7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

WE CONCUR:

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge