This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 35,669 4 ROBERT CHARLEY, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 John A. Dean Jr., District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, Defendant appeals from his 1 convictions of possession of dangerous drugs (Promethazine), a fourth degree felony, 2 and possession of a controlled substance (Tramadol), a misdemeanor. We previously 3 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. 4 Defendant has filed a memorandum in oppositi on. After due consid eration, we remain 5 unpersuaded. 6
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant appears to argue that the 7 investigating officer lacked reasonable susp icion to detain Defendant because he was 8 investigating an anonymous tip without suffi cient corroboration. [MIO 7] Our review 9 of the record proper reveals that this i ssue was not preserved below. [RP 54-55, 71-73] 10 As such, we will not address it for the first time on appeal. See State v. Martinez , 11 2010-NMCA-051, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 262, 233 P.3d 791 (refusing to address for the first 12 time on appeal “the reliability of [an] informant’s information”). 13
{3} Defendant further argues that any reas onable suspicion that may have initially 14 justified the investigatory detention had dissipated by the time the officer asked 15 Defendant to step out of the vehicle because the officer did not observe any 16 incriminating behavior or open containers upon approachi ng the vehicle. [MIO 7-9] 17 “An officer who makes a valid investigatory stop may briefly detain those he suspects 18 of criminal activity to verify or quell that suspicion. The scope of activities during an 193 investigatory detention must be reasonably related to the circumstances that initially 1 justified the stop.” State v. Werner , 1994-NMSC-025, ¶ 13, 117 N.M. 315, 871 P.2d 2 971 (citation omitted). Here, the officer wa s investigating a potential violation of 3 Section 5-1-5 of the Farmington Municipal Code, which prohibits the consumption 4 of alcohol “upon any parking lot . . . wh ich is privately owned and used by the 5 public.” Specifically, the officer was dispatched to investigate a report that a male 6 individual was consuming alcohol in a vehi cle upon a Wal-Mart parking lot. [MIO 1; 7 DS 2] In the docketing statement, Defendant acknowledged that he was detained while 8 the officer searched the vehicle for open al cohol containers pursuant to the driver’s 9 consent. [DS 2-3] Defendant did not cl aim, and does not claim in the memorandum 10 in opposition, that his detention exte nded beyond the time it took the officer to 11 complete this search. We hold that the s earch of the vehicle was “reasonably related 12 to the circumstances that initially justifie d the stop” and that Defendant’s detention 13 was no longer than necessary for the officer “to verify or quell” his valid suspicion. 14 Werner , 1994-NMSC-025, ¶ 13. Therefore, we affirm. 15
{4} With regard to Defendant’s second challenge on appeal—that the district court 16 erred in holding that the pat-down search of his person was justified—in the 17 memorandum in opposition, Defendant reiterates his position that the officer lacked 18 reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and presently dangerous. [MIO 9-13] 194 Under the applicable standard of review, wemust view “the facts in the light most 1 favorable to the prevailing party.” State v. Cline , 1998-NMCA-154, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 77, 2 966 P.2d 785. Therefore, we decline Defendant’s numerous invitations to view the 3 facts in a light favorable to him. [MIO 11- 12] For the reasons stated in our calendar 4 notice, we affirm. 5
{5} With regard to Defendant’s last chal lenge on appeal—that the district court 6 erred in holding that the searching officer wa s justified in taking the glass pipe out of 7 his pocket—in the memorandum in opposition, Defendant concedes that he did not 8 expressly preserve this issue for appellate review. [MIO 13] See State v. Janzen , 2007- 9 NMCA-134, ¶ 11, 142 N.M. 638, 168 P.3d 768 (requiring preservation of different 10 theories relevant to the suppression of evidence). In any event, we remain 11 unpersuaded on the merits. Once again, Defendant invites us to view the facts in a 12 light that favors reversal, which is something we cannot do. [MIO 14] Cline , 1998- 13 NMCA-154, ¶ 6. Therefore, and for the reasons stated in our calendar notice, we 14 affirm. 15
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

_________ _______________________ 17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 185 WE CONCUR: 1

________________________________ 2 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 3

________________________________ 4 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 5