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: M ar ch 5, 201 8 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 4272 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 RONALD WI DMER, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 St an Wh it ak er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Santa Fe , N M 14 John Kloss, 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, Appellate Def ender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} T he dis tr ic t co urt de nie d D ef en da nt Ro na ld W idm er ’ s m oti on to supp re ss o n 4 ground s that inculp atory statem ents he m ade w ithou t the benefit of Mir an da w ar nin gs 5 we re a dm iss ibl e unde r the pol ic e of fi ce r sa fe ty

e xc ep tio n to M

ira nda
. W e d i sa gree 6 and reverse. 7 BACKGRO UND 8 { 2} De fendant was fo u n d guil ty by a j ury on one coun t of possessi on of a 9 co ntr oll ed

sub stanc e (m etha m

phe ta m ine ), c ontrary

to N M S A1 9 7 8 , S ec tio n 30 -3 1- 23 10 (2 011)
. D ef

en da nt’ s c onvi ct ionste m

m ed f ro m the de te nti on and se ar ch of his pe rs on 11 th atoc cu rred du rin g a n Al bu qu erq ue , New Mex i co Po li ce Dep art m en t (APD) 12 inv es tig at ionint o w he the r a m ope d inD ef en da nt’ s po sse ssi on w as sto le n. 13 { 3} De fendant filed a pre- trial m otion to supp ress statem ents he m ade, together 14 w itha ny

dr ugs an d para

phe rn al iase iz ed fro m hi s pe rs on b y the A PD of

fi ce rs . 15 Be ca use D ef en da nt’ s m oti on w as unt im el y , the dis tr ic t c ourt de ci de d to a ddr es s th e 16 m erits of D efendant’ s m otion during th e trial, and toget h er wi t h any relate d 17 co nst itu tio na l i ssu es a s th ey a ro se w hil e the e vid en ce a t tri al w as be ing pr es en te d. 18 { 4} A PD O ff

ic ers Fran k B ac a an d “ Sp ee dy ” Apoda ca , a s w el l a s A PD f or en sic 19 sc ie nti st M anue l G om ez te sti fi ed
. In ad dit ion , D ef en da nt pro vid ed lim ite d te sti m ony2

1 out sid e of

the pr es en ce of

the j ur y . A PD dis pa tc h r ec ei ve d an anonym ous tip 2 reporting two indiv iduals in a W algreens p arking lot we re try ing to start a m oped that 3 appeared to have been tam pered w ith, and Of

ficer s Ba ca and Apodaca we re 4 di sp at ch edto in ve st ig at e. Upo n a rri vi ng at t he W al gr een s at aro un d 1 1: 00 p.m ., 5 O ff ic er Apoda ca te sti fi ed that he appr oa ch ed

D ef en da nt and hi s com

pa nio n, L y dia 6 Alvare z, who were standin g around a m oped m eeting the tip’s descr iptio n, and asked 7 w ha t w as goi ng o n and w ha t w er e the y doi ng. D ef

en da nt and Ms
. A lvare z, a cc or din g 8 to Off icer Apodaca, c ooperated with the office rs and explained that their m oped was 9 having m echanical issues due to a low battery . A lthou gh D efendant told the officers 10 tha t he ow ne d the m ope d, O ff ic er Apoda ca

sa id the y c ont inu ed

to inv es tig at e be ca

use 11 there w as dam age to the m oped’s ignition, which indicated that it m ay have been 12 sto le n. 13 { 5} O ff

ic er Apoda ca loc at ed a V IN num be r on the m ope d and r antha t i nf orm at ion 14 through the N at i on a l C r i m i na l I nf or m at i on C e nt e r (N C I C )

— a

d atabase through which 15 pol ic e run ch ec ks on pot en tia l sto le n ve hic le s, fi re ar m inquir ie s, a nd w ar

rant c he ck s. 16 A t the sa m e tim e, O ff ic er Ba ca c oll ec te d and r anthe pers ona l i nf orm at ionof 17 D ef en da nt and M s. A lvare z thr oughN CI C and l earn ed that D ef en da nt h ad

apos sib le 18 ac tiv e fe lon y

a rr es t w ar

rant.3

1 { 6} A s soon as the of fi ce rs le ar

ne d of the poss ibl e ar

re st w ar rant, wit hi n o nly 2 m inutes of arriving at W algreens, and before re ceiving confirm ation from dispatch 3 that the arre st war

rant was in fact active, Off icer Apodaca detained Def endant, placed 4 him in ha ndc uf

fs , a nd d ir ec te d hi m

to sit ne ar the sid ew al k. 5 { 7} Whi l e D ef

en d an t wa s b ei n g h an d cu ff

ed , Of fi ce r Ap o d ac a s e a r c h e dD e f e n d an t ’s 6 pe rs on. D ur ing the se ar ch an d w ith out re ad ing D ef en da nt h is M

ira nda rights, O ffice r 7 Apoda ca as ke d D ef

en da nt “ Is the re an ythi ng el se on y ou tha t I shou ld kn ow 8 ab out ?”—

w hic h bo th o ff

ic er s te sti fi ed

is a ro uti ne que sti on a ske d of ind ivi dua ls 9 be ing pa tte d dow n to en sur e poli ce sa fe ty . In re spon se to O ff ic er Apoda ca ’ s qu es tio n, 10 Of ficer Baca testif i ed over defense c ouns el’ s objection (w hich was overr uled) that 11 D ef en da nt a dm itt ed

to ha vin g som e m etha m

phe ta m ine in a re d pi ll co nta ine r ha ngi ng 12 from his belt loo p. A s a result, Of ficer Apodaca se ized a pill container w hich 13 contained a white powdery subs tance from De fendant’ s belt loop . S hortly thereaf ter, 14 A PD dis pa tc h conf

irm ed tha t the ar

re st w ar rant f or D ef en da nt w as out standi ng and 15 De fendant wa s placed in Off icer Apodaca’ s squad car and rem oved f rom the scene. 16 { 8} Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt g av e t wo ex p l an at i o n s fo r i t s ru l i n g ad m i t t i n g De fe n d an t ’s 17 statem ent into evid ence. The district court ruled t h at De fendant’ s questio ning wa s 18 pe rm iss ibl e as inc ide nt t o alaw fu l arr es t un de r the pol ic e sa fety ex cep ti on t o 19 M ira nda
. In a subsequent statem ent, the district court further explained that it refused4

1 to “ ge t i nto the a rt fu lne ss o r la ck of a rt fu lne ss” of

O ff ic er Apoda ca ’ s qu es tio n to 2 D ef en da nt. 3 T he j ur y w as ins tr uc te d th at : 4 E vid en ce ha s be ena dm itt ed c onc er nin g a stat em en t a lle ge dly m ad e 5 by

[D ] efendant. Before y ou consi der such statem ent for any purpose, 6 y ou m

ust determ ine that the statem ent was given vo l u n t arily . I n 7 de te rm ini ng w he the r a sta te m en t was vo lun tari ly giv en , y ou s houl d 8 co ns id er i f it was fr eel y m ad e an d n ot in du ced by pro m is e o r th reat . 9 { 9} O ff

ic er Apoda ca f urthe r te sti fi ed

that duri ng the inv es tig at iona t W al gr ee ns h e 10 and Off

icer B aca a lso sp oke with Ms. Alvare z. As a result of this interaction, O ffice r 11 Apodaca testified that he seized a sm all baggie containin g a w hite powdery subst ance 12 from Ms. A lvarez, which O ffice r Ba ca had noticed w as underneath Ms. Alvar ez’ s leg 13 w he re she sa t on th e si de walk
. Be lie vin g th at a ll of the w hit e pow de r se iz ed f ro m 14 D ef en da nt and M s. A lvare z w as m etha m phe ta m ine , O ff

ic er Apoda ca c om bin ed the 15 co nte nts of the pil l co nta ine r fr om D ef en da nt’ s be lt w ith the co nte nts in t he baggi e 16 seized fr om

Ms. A lvarez into one bag before tagging it int o evidence. 17 { 10} Mr
. G om ez , w ho w as qua lif ie d a s an e xpe rt in fo re nsi c sc ie nc e an d an al y sis of 18 controlle d su

bs t a nc e s, t e st i f

i e d t ha tas i ng l e s a m

pl e o f t he c on t e nt s of

t he b ag 19 containin g the m ixed white powders seize d from De fendant and Ms. A lvarez w as 20 tested for cont rolled subs tances. This sam ple tested posit ive for m etham phetam ine. 21 { 11} T he j ur

y r et ur ne d age ne ra l ve rd ic t of

gui lty , a nd D ef

en da nt a ppe al s.5

1 DISC US SION 2 I. Stand ard of R eview 3 { 12} Appellate r eview of a m otion to supp ress under M i r a n da p resents a m ixed 4 qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct . Sta te v . O liv as , 2011 -N MC A -0 30, ¶ 8, 149 N
. M. 498 , 252 5 P. 3d 7 22. W e de fe r to the dis tr ic t c ourt’s fin din gs o f fa ct , if the y a re sup porte d by 6 subs tanti al e vid en ce , a nd app ly de novo re vie w to the a ppl ic at ionof

the law to tho se 7 fact s. Sta te v . Ni et o , 200 0-NMS C-031, ¶ 19, 129 N.M . 688, 12 P. 3d 44 2. “ Whether 8 a d ef en d an twa s s ub

je ct t o a c u s t o d i al i n t er ro g at i o n an d w h et h era d ef en d an t ’s 9 st at em en ts are v ol un ta ril y gi ve n a re l eg al de te rm in at io ns th atwe rev ie w de n o vo .” 10 O liv as , 2011 -N MC A -0 30, ¶ 8; se e Ni et o , 2000 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 19 (ut ili zi ng d e novo 11 re vie w to de te rm ine wh e th e r a d ef en da nt w as sub

j ec t t o c ust odi al int er

ro ga tio n) ; Sta te 12 v. Cooper , 199 7- N MS C- 058, ¶ ¶ 25- 28, 124 N
. M. 277 , 949 P
. 2d 6 60 ( ap ply ing de 13 no vo rev ie w to de te rm in e i f a c o n fes si on was v ol un ta ry ). Lik ewis e, we rev ie w a 14 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion of law tha t the pol ic e of fi ce r sa fe ty

e xc ep tio n to M

ira nda 15 ap pl ie s u nd er a d e n ov o s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. S e e U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ne wt on , 3 69 F
. 3d 1 6 6 5 9 , 6 6 9 (2 d Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ) (ap p l yin g a d e n o v o s t an d ar do f r ev i ew t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 17 le ga l c onc lus ionr eg ar din g th e ap pl ic ab ili ty of the pub lic sa fe ty

e xc ep tio n to 18 M ira nda ); United States v. L ackey , 334 F. 3d 1224, 1226 (10th Cir. 2003 ) (“ Whether6

1 [the] fac ts sup port an exception to the M ira nda requirem ent is a

question of law .” ). 2 II. A na lys is 3 { 13} On appeal, De fendant argues that Of fi c e r A po da c a’ s questio n to Defe ndant: “ Is 4 there anything on y our person that I shou l d k n ow about? ”—w hich prom pted 5 D ef en da nt t o st at e tha t he ha d som e m etha m phe ta m ine —w as c ust odi al int er ro ga tio n 6 in v iol at ionof

his r igh ts unde r the F if

th A m en dm en t and M

iranda v . A riz ona , 384 7 U
. S. 436 ( 1966 ). D efen da nt al so c ont en ds O ff ic er Apoda ca ’ s qu es tio n do es not 8 qu a l i f y u n d e r t h e p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s a f e t y e x c e p t i o n to Miranda
. W e ag re e w ithboth 9 co nte nti ons. 10 A. Cu stodial Interr ogation Unde r Mir anda 11 { 14} Th e Fifth A m endm ent to the United States Constituti on provi des that “ [n ]o 12 person shall b e com

pelled in any crim inal case to be a witness agains t him self. ” U .S
. 13 Const. am end V. Based on this prote ction, the U nited States Suprem e Court 14 es ta bli she d in M

ira nda t hat the governm ent m ay not use statem ents, w hether 15 ex cu lpa tor

y or inc ulp at or

y , ste m m ing f ro m “ cu sto dia l i nte rr ogati on” of asus pe ct , 1 6 u n l es s ef

fe ct i v e p r o c ed u ra l s af

eg u ar d s h av e b ee n fo l l o we dt o s ec u re t h e s u s p ec t ’s 17 pr ivi le ge a ga ins t se lf -incr im ina tio n. 384 U
. S. a t 44 4 ( hol din g th at pr ior to 18 inv es tig at or

y que sti oni ng, a sus pe ct “ m ust be w ar ne d th at he ha s [ the ] r igh t t o r em ai n 19 silent, that any

statem ent he does m ake m ay be used as evidence against him , and that7

1 he ha s a r ig ht to th e p res en ce o f an att or ne y ”). M ira nda warnings are required w hen 2 a su sp ect ha s b een : (1 ) pl aced in cu st od y , a n d t he n (2 ) su bjec t t o i nt erro ga ti on . Id

. ; 3 State v. V

asqu ez , 201 0- N MC A -0 41, ¶ 26, 148 N
. M. 202 , 232 P
. 3d 4 38. Whena 4 de fe ndant i s su

bj ec t t o c ust odi al int er

ro ga tio n w ith out M

ira nda w ar

nin gs, a ny 5 responses m ade to police during the course o f t he custodial in terrogation are 6 pr es um edco m

pe ll edan d m

ust be e xc lu de d fr om

ev id en ce. O re

gon v. E lstad , 470 U. S. 7 298, 317 (198 5). 8 { 15} T he re fo r e , w e m u s td e t e rm i n e i f

O f f i c e r Ap o d a c a ’ s qu e s t i o n t o D e f e n d a nt 9 co nc er nin g w he the r he ha d anythi ng o n hi m that O ff ic er Apoda ca shou ld k

nowabout 10 constitu ted “ custodi al interrogation.” W e consider the q u es t ions o f w hether 11 D ef en da nt w as pla ce d inc ust ody a nd the n su

bj ec t t o in te rr oga tio n intur n. 12 { 16} T o de te rm ine w he th er a sus pe ct w as pla ce d inc ust ody f or pur pose s of 13 Mir anda , ap p e l l a t e c o u rt s e n g a g e i n a n o b j e c t i v e i n qu i ry

u n d e r w h i c h t h e u l t i m at e 14 iss ue is w he the r a sus pe ct w as e ith er

f orm al ly pla ce d un de r ar

re st o r subj ec t t o 15 restraint fr om free dom of m ovem ent to the degree no rm ally associated with a f

orm al 16 arre st . Se e Sta te v . W

ils on , 200 7- N MC A -1 11, ¶ 14, 142 N
. M. 737 , 169 P. 3d 1 184; see 17 als o Stat e v. M

unoz , 199 8- N MS C- 048, ¶ 41, 126 N
. M. 535 , 972 P
. 2d 8 47; 18 Yarbo roug

h v

. A lv arad

o , 541 U
. S. 652 , 653 ( 2004 ). Be ca use the inquir

y int o Mir anda 19 custodyis an objec tive one, the subjec tive be l i efs of the sus pect and police officer8

1 co nc ern in g wh et he r th e su sp ect was i n c us to dy are imm at eri al
. Se e W il son , 200 7- 2 NMC A- 111, ¶ 41. A s a result, “ [t] he only relevant in quiry is how a reasonable m an 3 in the susp ect’ s posi tion would have understood his situ ation.” Yarbo roug h , 541 U. S. 4 at 653 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ); se e W ils on , 200 7- N MC A -1 11, 5 ¶ 35 ( hol din g th at

asus pe ct w as in M ira nda cu sto dy w he n the pol ic e ha ndc uf fe d and 6 pla ce d hi m

in a pol ic e ve hic le ); see a lso New York v. Quarles , 467 U
. S. 649 , 655 -5 6 7 (1 984) ( hol din g th at

asus pe ct w as in M ira nda c ust ody

w he n he w as ha ndc uf

fe d and 8 surround ed by

police officer s, even though h e h ad n o t yet been told he was under 9 ar re st) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 3 F. 3d 1088, 1097 -9 8 (7th Ci r. 1993 ) (h old ing that a 10 sus pe ct

w as in M ira nda cu sto dy w he n the sus pe ct w as f ri ske d, pla ce d inhandc uf fs , 11 and told to sit in a specific place). 12 { 17} De fendant wa s i n cu s t ody for purposes of M

ira nda a t the ti m e of

the 13 que sti oni ng tha t l ed

to his a dm iss ionto poss es sin g m et ha m phe ta m ine
. A lm ost 14 im m ed ia te ly upo n arr ivi ng a t W al gr ee ns and l earn ing of apos sib le a ct ive arre st 15 warrant f

or D ef en da nt, O ff

ic er Apoda ca

de ta ine d D ef

en da nt and p la ce d hi m

in 16 ha ndc uf

fs
. O ff ic er Apoda ca pr oc ee de d to fr isk D ef en da nt an d dir ec te d hi m

to sit 17 down on the sidewalk. Although Of ficer Baca testified at t rial that A PD officer s are 18 not pe rm itt ed

to fo rm al ly

pla ce asus pe ct

und er a rr es t un til pot en tia l w ar rants ha ve 19 been confirm ed by

dispatch, Of

ficer Apodaca te stified that at the tim e D efendant w as9

1 p l ac ed i n h an d cu ff

s “ h e was ar re s t ed fo r th e war ra n t .” Ho we v er , wh et h erDe fe n d an t ’s 2 de te nti on c onst itu ted aninv es tig at or y sto p, ade f

ac to arr es t, or

f orm al a rr es t i s 3 im m aterial bec ause a su spect need not be under form al arr est to be in “ custody ” under 4 M ira nda . R ather M

ira nda c ust ody onl y

r equir es r es tr ai nt f

ro m m ove m en t t o th e 5 de gr ee nor

m al ly as soc ia te d w ith an ar re st, as the co urts i n W

ils on , Quarles , a nd Sm ith 6 co nc lud ed
. In tho se c as es , the c ourts d et er m ine d su spe ct s w er e in M ira nda c ust ody 7 when they

we re han d cu ffed, frisked, questio ned, and ordere d to sit in a particular 8 ar ea —e ve n if not e xp li ci tly

tol d th ey

w er e unde r ar

re st— be ca use the sus pe ct s’ 9 m ovem ent was r estrained to the degree norm ally as sociated with an arr est. H ere, 10 D ef en da nt’ s f re ed om of m ove m en t wa s si m ilarl y r es tr ai ne d w he n he w as handc uf fe d, 11 fr isk ed , que sti one d, a nd o rd er ed to sit on th e side w al k by

O ff ic er Apoda ca . T he 12 ci rc um stanc es ind ic at e tha t a re as ona ble pe rs on in D ef

en da nt’ s po sit ionw oul d have 1 3 u n d e r s t o o dh i ms e l f

t o b e i n c u s t o d y. 14 { 18} Having determ ined that Def e nd ant w a s pl a c e d i n “ c us t od

y ” b y Of ficer Apodaca 15 for pu rp oses of M

ira nda , w e tur

n to w he the r O ff

ic er Apoda ca ’ s qu es tio nin g of 16 De fendant constitu ted “ interrogation,” under M ira nda
. 17 { 19} “ Interrogation” under M ira nda ce rt ai nly

e nc om pa sse s expr es s ques tio ns f ro m 1 8 pol i c e t o o b t a i n a n i n c r i m i n a t i n g r e s p o n s e . B u t , i ti s n o tl i m i t e dt o s u c h e x p re ss 19 que sti ons. “ In te rr oga ti on ” also i nc lud es “ an y w or ds o r ac tio ns, ” ac co rd ing to the10

1 U nit ed St at es Su

pr em e Co urt, “ tha t the pol ic e shou ld k nowa re r ea sona

bly li ke ly to 2 elicit an incrim inating response[.] ” R hode I sla nd v

. I nni s , 446 U. S. 291, 301 (198 0), 3 ( qu o t e din State v . Ybarra , 1990-NMS C-109, ¶ 11, 111 N. M. 234, 804 P. 2d 10 53). 4 In this regard, because M ira nda i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e a s u s p e c t i n c u sto dyw ith 5 ad dit ion al pr ote ct ion ag ai nst “ co er ci ve pol ic e pr ac tic es , w ith out r eg ar d to obj ec tiv e 6 p ro o f o f t h e u n d er l yin g i n t en t o f th e p o l i ce [, ]” t h e f o cu s i s p ri m ar i l y o n t h e s u s p ec t ’s 7 pe rcep ti on . R hode I

sla nd , 446 U
. S. a t 30 1. “ A pr ac tic e tha t the pol ic e shou ld k now 8 is re as ona

bly lik el y to evo ke an inc ri m ina tin g re spon se fr om a susp ec t thus am ount s 9 to in te rro ga ti on ” reg ard le ss of t he po li ce o ffi cer’s ac tu al in te nt . Id
. 10 { 20} Sta te v . Spo tte d E lk , 34 P. 3d 90 6 (W ash. Ct. App. 2001 ) is illustrative. In 11 Spot te d E lk , a

police officer

saw a person h e k n ew to be a drug user, a nd after 12 co nf irming hi s s us pi ci on th at sh e ha d ou ts ta nd in g arres t warran ts , arres te d h er. Id . a t 13 908. Beca

use he knew the defendant wa s a drug user, the officer wa s concerned that 14 she m ight h ave w eapons, needles, or drugs on h er p erson, and he asked, before 15 ha ndc uf

fi ng and s earc hin g he r inci de nt to ar re st, “ D o y ou h av e an ythi ng o n y our 16 person I need to be concerned about? ” Id
. U s u a l l y, b u tn o tt h i s t i m e, t h e o ff i ce r’s 17 pr ac tic e w as to im

m ed ia te ly e xpl ai n, “ [w ] ea

pons , ne ed le s or

a nythi ng tha t c anpok e 18 m e, stick m e, o f any

kind? ” Id
. I n r es pons e to the of fi ce r’ s qu es tio n, the de fe ndant 19 rem oved a plastic contain er fr o m h er shi rt pocket and told the officer that it was11

1 he ro in whi ch be lo ng edto a fri en d. Id
. The W ashingt on Court of Appeals concluded 2 that given th e broad nature of the off icer’ s questio n (which lac ked his us ual 3 ex plana tio n that

he w as loo kin g f

or w ea pons , ne ed le s, or

it em s th at

c oul d po ke or 4 stick him ), “ he shoul d have known his query wa s re as o n ab l y l ikely

to elicit an 5 incrim inating response.” Id

. at 909. T he co urt the re fo re co nc lud ed tha t the de fe ndant 6 wa s subjected to an interrogation under M ira nda
. Spot te d E lk , 34 P.3d at 9 09
. 7 { 21} W e fi nd Spot te d E lk persuasive and adopt it s reasoning. He re, De fendant wa s 8 co nf ro nte d by tw o arm ed

pol ic e of fi ce rs , handc uf

fe d, se ar ch ed , a nd the n or de re d to 9 sit on th e sidewa lk. A fter D efendant w as handcuffed and while O ffice r Apodaca wa s 10 in the process of searching Def enda n t , Of

fi cer Apodaca asked D efendant “ Is there 11 an ythi ng o n y ou tha t I sho uld kno w about ?” Thi s w as abr oa d, unl im ite d qu es tio n 12 w ithno e xpl an at ion tha t O ff ic er Apoda ca w as as kin g onl y ab out it em s w hic h c oul d 13 j eo pa rd iz e his sa fe ty . Fr om D ef en da nt’ s per ce pti on, the “ que sti on” w as tantam ount 14 to a de m an d by

O ff ic er Apoda ca that D ef en da nt d isc los e to him whe th er any thi ng 15 il le ga l was on Defen da nt ’s per so n. Se e Sta te v . H erm osi llo , 201 4- N MC A -1 02, ¶ 11, 16 336 P.3d 4 4 6 (“ In determ ining whether a person is being in terrogated, we consider 17 w he the r the of

fi ce r’ s qu es tio nin g is r ea so na bly li ke ly to el ic it aninc ri m ina tin g 18 re spon se or

ha s th at e ff ec t. ”)
. A n arm ed

pol ic e of

fi ce r w ho h as j ust

handcuf fe d a 19 pe rs on and i s inthe pro ces s of se ar ch ing that pe rs on w ho a sks w he the r the re is12

1 anything on his p erson the officer “ shou ld” know about, shou ld know that the police 2 of fi ce r’ s qu es tio n is lik el y to el ic it an inc ri m ina tin g re spon se . W e the re fo re c onc lud e 3 that Def

endant was subje cted to interrogation un der M ira nda
. 4 { 22} Beca

use Def endant was subje cted to custod ial int errogatio n und er M ira nda , 5 De fendant wa s entitled to being advi sed of his const itutio nal rights. It is undisp uted 6 tha t D ef

en da nt w as Mirandized

a ft er the inc ulp at or

y state m en ts w er e el ic ite d f ro m 7 h i m b y Of

fi ce r Ap o d ac a. As a re s u l t , u n l es s t h e c i rc u m s t an ce s o f O ff i ce r A p o d ac a’s 8 que sti oni ng of D ef

en da nt w ar

rant app lic at ion of an ex ce pti on t o M ira nda , the district 9 c o u rte rr e di n a d mi t t i n g D e f e n d a n t ’s s t a t e me n tt o O f

f i c e r Ap o d a c at h a th e h a ds o me 10 m et h am

phetam ine. W e proceed by considering th e state’ s argum ent and district 11 co urt’ s r

uli ng tha t an e xc ep tio n to M ira nda applies in thi s case. 12 B. Th e P oli ce Of

fi ce r Sa fe ty Ex ce pt ion t o Mi ran da 13 { 23} In Quarles , the U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt e sta bli she d a“ na rr owe xc ep tio n 14 to the M

ira nda ru le [, ] ” w hic h a llo w s arr es tin g of fi ce rs to as k ade fe ndant “ que sti ons 15 necessary

to secure their ow n safety o r th e safe ty of the public.” Quarles , 467 U. S. 16 at 658 -5 9 ( 1984 ). I n Quarles , a w om an re porte d that she ha d be enr ap ed a t gunpoi nt 17 an d pr ov id ed a de sc rip ti on of he r at ta ck er. Id
. at 651-52
. When the officer s entered 18 a ne ar by sup er m ar ke t and s awam anf

itt ing the de sc ri pti on p ro vid ed by the w om an , 19 he fle d. Id
. at 652. Fo llo w ing a shor t purs uit , the of

fi ce rs c au ght

him , f ri ske d hi m , a nd13

1 di sc ov ered th at he was wea rin g a n e m pt y sh ou ld er h ol st er. Id
. A ft er handc uf fi ng the 2 sus pe ct a nd b ef or e advis ing him

of his M ira nda rights, the officer s asked the susp ect 3 whe re t he gu n was . Quarles , 467 U
. S. a t 65 2. H e nodd ed tow ar ds s om e em

pty c ar ton s 4 and answere d, “ t h e g u n i s over there. ” Id
. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). T he 5 Court reverse d supp ression of the defendant’ s statem ent and the firearm , hol ding that 6 unde r ci rc um stanc es w he re a que sti on i s “ re as ona bly pr om pte d by ac onc er n f or the 7 pu bl ic saf

et y” o r t h e sa fet y

of t he arres ti ng off

ic ers , M ira nda w ar

nin gs are not 8 req ui red
. Quarles , 467 U
. S. a t 65 6, 658
. T he Co urt c au tio ne d th at und er thi s “ na rr ow 9 exception,” ea ch case “ will b e circum scribed by the exigency which j ustifies it.” Id
. 10 at65 8. 11 { 24} In State v. T

rang ucci , 199 0- N MC A -0 09, ¶¶ 6- 13, 110 N
. M. 385 , 796 P
. 2d 6 06, 12 this C ourt a

ppl ie d Quarles
. I n Trangu cci , the de fe ndant f or ce d hi m se lf

int o th e 13 vic tim ’ s a

pa rtm en t, a nd af

te r the vic tim re fu se d the de fe ndant’ s r ep ea te d de m an ds f or 14 m one y , the de fe ndant s hot the vic tim

in the f ac e an d r an . 1990 -N MC A -0 09, ¶ 3. T he 15 pol ic e le ar

ned earl y the ne xt m or

nin g th at the de fe ndant w as a t a

c er ta in m ote l and 16 wen t th ere to arre st hi m . Id
. ¶ 4. A ft er en te ri ng the ro om w ith the ir w ea pons dr awn, 17 the officer s observed a m an ly ing on one of the beds w ith his back towar ds the doo r, 18 and then foun d the defendant hidi ng un derneath a dre sser tab le with hi s hands h idden 19 un de r hi s ch es t. Id
. ¶ 5. A ft er lif tin g the dr es se r an d w hil e lif tin g th e de fe ndant t o hi s14

1 fe et , one of

the of fi ce rs co nduc te d a qui ck pa t dow n of the de fe ndant’ s f ro nt are a an d 2 asked, “ Where is the gun? ” Id
. D ef en da nt, w ho w as not

y et ha ndc uf

fe d, im m ed ia te ly 3 an swe redth atth e o ffi cer was no t go in g to fin d t he gu n b ecau se he ha d d it ch edit
. Id
. 4 D ef en da nt w as the n gi ve n hi s M ira nda warn in gs . Trangu cci , 199 0- N MC A -0 09, ¶ 5. 5 O n a ppe al , the de fe ndant ar gue d that the dis tr ic t cour t e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti on t o 6 su pp res s h is st at em en t re ga rd in g t he gu n. Id
. ¶ 6. T his Co urt obse rv ed th at “ [t ] he 7 standard fo r ap pli ca tio n of the publ ic sa fe ty e xc ep tio n to M

ira nda warnings” un der 8 Quarles is “ a re as ona

ble de te rm ina tio n of

a n ob j ec tiv e, im

m ed ia te thr ea t to th e sa fe ty 9 of the public [or the police] .” Trangu cci , 1990 -N MCA -009, ¶ 10. B ecause substantial 10 evidence suppo rted the district c ourt’ s finding “ that the situatio n had not stabilized 11 or be ense cure d f

or e ve ry body ’ s sa fe ty ” w he n the de fe ndant w as que sti one d, thi s 12 Co urt he ld tha t the dis tr ic t co urt pr ope rl y de nie d the de fe ndant’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s 13 un d e r th e p o l ic e an d/o r publ ic sa fe ty e xc ep tio n to M

ira nda
. Trangu cci , 1 9 9 0
- N M CA14 009, ¶ 13. 15 { 25} Q uarl es an d Trangu cc i te ac h th at anarr owe xc ep tio n to M

ira nda exists when 16 the re is an obj ec tiv e, im m ed ia te thr ea t to pol ic e of fi ce r sa fe ty an d po li ce ask 17 que sti ons tha t are ne ce ssary to se cure the ir

ow n sa fe ty . I n e ach ca se the e xc ep tio n 18 “ will be circum scribed by the exigency

which j ustifies it.” Quarles , 467 U
. S. a t 65 8.15

1 Previously decided cases, sim ilar to the one before us her e, give us ad d i t ional 2 guid ance. 3 { 26} In S

p o t t e d E lk , d i s cu s s ed ab o v e, af t er co n cl u d i n g t h at t h e p o l i ce o ff i ce r’s 4 questio n, “ Do y ou have anything on y our person I need to be concerned about? ” w as 5 custodi al i nterrogation un der M ira nda , the W ashingt on Court of Appeals procee ded 6 to co ns id er whe th er t he po li ce o ffi cer s afet y ex cep ti on ap pl ie d. Spot te d E lk , 34 P
. 3d 7 at 9 08, 9 10. The court concluded it did not for two reasons: (1) “ the officer ’ s broad 8 an d ap pa re ntl y unqu al if ie d que sti on w as not re la te d sol el y to his ow n sa fe ty ”; a nd ( 2) 9 “ no sense of urgency

attended the arre st.” Id
. a t 91 0. 10 { 27} In St at e v. Cr ook , 785 S. E. 2d 77 1 (N. C. Ct. App. 2016 ), a police office r w as 11 at a m ote l inve sti ga tin g whe the r the de fe ndant and anothe r sus pe ct w er e in p oss es sio n 12 of asto le n ve hic le , a nd r ec ei ve d c onf irm at iontha t the sus pe ct ha d an ou tst an ding 13 warra nt fo r hi s ar res t. Id
. at 773- 74. A ft er a ba ck up o ff ic er a rr ive d, the of

fi ce rs w en t 14 to the r oom

to ar re st the sus pe ct , w he re aw re stl ing m at che nsue d w he n th e de fe ndant 15 in te rfer edwit h t he su sp ect ’s arres t. Id a t 77 4. A p ol ic e of

fi ce r ha ndc uf

fe d th e 16 de fe ndant, or de re d hi m to sit on the gr ound , an d duri ng his pat -d ow n of the de fe ndant 17 fo un d s cal es in th e d efen da nt ’s po ck et . Id

. Af ter retrieving the scales, the o ff i cer 1 8 a s k e dh i m w h e t h e r “h e [ h a d ] an yt h i n g e l s e o n h i m” a n d t h e d e f e n d a n ta n s w e r e d , “I 19 have we ed in the room .” Id

. T he co ur t rej ec te d th e sta te ’ s arg um en t tha t the pub lic16

1 sa fe ty e xc ep tio n to M

ira nda ap pli ed be ca

use the re w as no thr ea t t o th e publ ic sa fe ty 2 w hic h ou tw ei ghe d th e ne ed to pr ote ct the de f e n d an t ’ s r igh t a ga ins t se lf -i nc ri m ina tio n. 3 Cr ook , 785 S. E
. 2d a t 77 7- 78. S pe ci fi ca lly , the c ourt no te d, the de fe ndantpos ed no 4 thr ea t to the poli ce or publ ic sa fe ty be ca use he w as not

sus pe ct ed

of c ar ry ing agun 5 orweap on an d was ha nd cu ffed , si tt in g o n t he gro un d wh en he was q ue st io ne d. Id

. at 6 778. T he c ourt the re fo re he ld tha t the de fe ndant’ s m oti on to supp re ss h is s ta te m en t, 7 “ I ha ve weedin th e ro om [,]” sh ou ld ha ve be en gra nt ed
. Id

. a t 78 1. 8 { 28} In U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ca sta ne da , 196 F. Supp.3d 106 5 (D . A riz. 2016 ), police 9 of fi ce rs appr oa ch ed

the de fe ndant b ec au se he vio la te d a tra ff ic law w hil e ri din g hi s 10 bi cy cl e an d be cau se he ap pe ared to be tryng to el ud e th e o ffi cers . Id . a t 1068 . A fter 11 it w as dis co ve re d th at the de fe ndant h ad

an ou tst an din g m isd em eanor w ar rant f or 12 fa ilure to ap pe ar on a shop lif tin g c ha rg e, the de fe ndant w as handc uf fe d and arr es te d. 13 Id . T he officer s also decided to re trieve the defendant’ s bicy cle, which wa s ninetyfee t 14 away an d n ex t t o a st or ag e sh ed
. Id . O ne of the officer s asked the defendant “ if there 15 wa s anything on the bicy cle that he needed to know about.” Id . O ne of the offi cers 16 the n heard the de fe ndant say som ethin g abou t a jo int a nd w hil e ta kin g th e de fe ndant 17 to the pa tr ol c ar , one of the oth er of

fi ce rs he ar d the de fe ndant m um ble tha t “ he f

ound 18 som ething in the alley ,” that he thou ght it wa s a “ rifle or som ething,” and that it had 19 “ wood and screw s.” Id . T he officer s then found a saw ed-off shotgun in a backpack17

1 at ta ch edto th e h an dl eb ars of t he bi cy cl e. Id . a t 1068 -69. T he defendant wa s indicted 2 fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir ear m i n v i o l at io n o f fed eral law. Id
. a t 10 69. 3 T he c ourt re

j ec te d the gove rn m en t’ s ar gum en t tha t the de fe ndant’ s st at em en ts at the 4 sc en e of his ar

re st w er e not subj ec t to supp re ssi on unde r the pol ic e of fic er s af ety 5 ex ce pti on t o M

ira nda
. Ca sta ne da , 196 F. Supp.3d at 1 072-74 . First, the court noted 6 tha t the re w er e no f

ac ts a bout the de fe ndant, his co nduc t, or his ar re st tha t gave r ise 7 to a potential th reat or “ a pressing need to ensu re police and/or public safety .” Id . a t 8 1072 -73. I n additio n, the court concluded th at the nature of the question itself was 9 “ va gue a nd i nve sti ga tiv e” be ca use as kin g if

the re is “ an ythi ng” the of fi ce r ne ed s to 10 kno w about “ invit es” a r espons e “ to list sp ecific item s of evidence or other 11 incrim inating inform ation just as m uch as it addresses officer or public safety [. ] ” Id
. 12 at 1073. Such a q uestion , the court held, “ as oppos ed to a question strictly intended 13 to r es olv e anof

fi ce r’s obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble im m ed iate sa fe ty

c onc er ns c an not be 14 excused by

the Q uarl es exception.” Id
. a t 10 74. 15 { 29} W e h old t ha tu nd e r t he f a c t s of t hi s c a se , D e f

e nd a nt ’ s r e sp on se t o O f

f icer 16 Apoda ca ’ s qu es tio n, “ Is the re a nythi ng e lse on y ou tha t I shoul d knowabout ” m ust 17 be sup pr es se d. T his w as ac ust odi al int er ro ga tio n w ith out M

ira nda w ar

nin gs, an d th e 18 “ na rr owe xc ep tio n” r ec ogni ze d in Q uarl es doe s no t a ppl y . T he of

fi ce rs e xpr es se d no 19 concern of any

kind th at anything at t he scene or D efendant’ s conduct p osed a danger18

1 to their safety . I n fact, De fend an t wa s cooperative and handcuffed before the pat 2 dow n. I f O ff

ic er Apoda ca w as c onc er

ne d th at D ef en da nt m igh t have som et hing on 3 h i s p er s o n wh i ch wo u l den d an g er Of fi ce r Ap o d ac a w h i l e h e c o n du ct ed De fe n d an t ’s 4 pa t do w n, he did

not say so. I n a ddi tio n, th ere is no thi ng i n th e re co rd to showthe 5 re as on f

or suc h ac onc er

n, if suc h a conc er

n pote nti al ly ex ist ed
. S im ilar to Ca sta ne da , 6 the br oa d, und if

fe re nti at ed

que sti on, “ Is th er e an ythi ng e lse on y ou I ne ed to know 7 ab ou t? ” was no t focu se d on pro te ct in g o ffi cer s afet y . 19 6 F .Supp .3d at 1 07 3- 74 . As 8 w e ha ve a lr ea dy

observe d, the que sti on n ot o nly inv ite d D ef

en da nt t o di sc los e 9 whether he had contraband of any kind on his person, dangerous or not, th e o ffice r 10 ex pe ct ed

D ef en da nt t o c oope rate a nd answ er the que sti o n . B y

c o nti nui ng t o c oope rate 11 w iththe of

fi ce r, D ef en da nt’ s onl y opt ion s w er e to giv e ana nsw er that w as dis hone st 12 or to inc ri m ina te him se lf
. W e re qui re D ef

en da nt t o do ne ith er

und er the se 13 ci rc um stanc es . 14 { 30} W e em

pha siz e tha t our hold ing doe s not proh ibi t a polic e of fi ce r fr om a ski ng 15 a fo cu se d qu es tio n th at is ne ce ssary

to en sur e the sa fe ty of the of fi ce r w he n ther e is 16 an objec tive, im

m ediate threat to the safe ty of the office r. How ever, this is not s uch 1 7 a c as e. We t h er ef

o re d et er m i n e th at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt er re d i n ad m i t t i n g De fe n d an t ’s 18 sta te m en t tha t he ha d so m e m etha m phe ta m ine in a re d pill co nta ine r ha ngi ng f ro m his 1 9 b el tl o o p , t o g et h erwi t h t h e m et h amp h et amin e d i s co v er ed as a r es u l to f D ef en d an t ’s19

1 st at em en t. Se e Sta te v . G re en e , 197 7- N MS C- 111, ¶ ¶ 31- 32, 91 N
. M. 207 , 572 P
. 2d 2 935 (a gr ee ing that “ co urts m ust be w ill ing to ba r the phy sic al f ru its of ina dm iss ibl e 3 sta te m en ts and con fe ssi ons, as w el l as the co nf es sio ns the m se lve s” und er the “ fr uit 4 of the poiso nous tree” doctrine (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). 5 C . Ha rm le ss Er ro r 6 { 31} Perhaps anticipating our conclusio n, the State argues that even if M ira nda wa s 7 v i o l at ed , a d m i t t i n g De fe n d an t ’s s t at emen ti n t o ev i d en ce wa s h ar m l es s erro r. We 8 disagree. 9 { 32} At issue here is the viol ation of De fendant’ s constit ution al rights und er 10 M ira nda
. Se e W

ils on , 2007-NMC A- 111, ¶¶ 35-36 (stating that federal c onsti tutio nal 11 rights arise from

a M ira nda vio la tio n)
. A n a

ppe llate c ourt m ay

not c onc lud e tha t a 12 co ns tit

uti ona l e rr or

is ha rm le ss unle ss the state c ar ri es it s burd enof

de m onstratin g 13 th at th e erro r is ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Sta te v . T ollardo , 2012-NMS C14 008, ¶ 25, 275 P. 3d 110. T ha t i s to say , the S ta te m ust de m onstrate tha t the re is “ no 15 reas on ab le po ss ib il it y ” th at th e co ns ti tu ti on al erro r affe ct edth e v erd ic t. Sta te v . B arr , 16 20 09 -NMSC -0 24 , ¶ 53 , 14 6 N.M. 30 1, 2 10 P.3d 19 8 (e m ph as is om it te d) , overrruled 17 on o the r gr ound

s byT ollardo , 20 12 -NMSC -0 08 , ¶ 37
. 18 { 33} W ith the denial of Defendant’ s m otion to supp ress, the defense st rategy relied 19 on o the r la

pe l vide os re co rd ed by the of fi ce rs to cha lle nge the S ta te ’ s c la im that the20

1 w hit e pow de ry

sub stanc e pr es en te d at tr ia l w as not se iz ed fr om D ef en da nt. D ef

en se 2 counsel argued that the m etham phetam ine presented at trial had ac tually been seized 3 fr o m De fe n d an t ’s co m p an i o n , Ms . Alv ar ez . In s up p o rt o f th e d ef e n s e , De fe n d an t ’s 4 at tor ne y w an te d to a dm it ed ite d c lip s f ro m O ff ic er Apoda ca ’ s la

pe l c am vid eo . 5 How ever, because defe nse counsel had n ot y et edited the videos, and to avoid a delay 6 in the trial to allow counsel to redact the v ideos, t he district court ruled that to su pport 7 the defense, defense counsel would be required to adm it the full videos from Of ficer 8 Apoda ca an d Ba ca ’ s la pe l cam s, inc lud ing the audi o. O n on e of the vid eo s, a ft er

the 9 m etham

phetam ine was seized from De fendant, one of the off icers asked Ms. Alvar ez 10 if she ha d any

m etha m phe ta m ine , to w hic h sh e re spon de d, “ Wha t are y ou t al kin g 11 ab out ?” A s th e of

fi ce r w as a nsw er ing , “ [t ] he m eth th at ’ s on [D ef en da nt, ] ” D ef

en da nt 12 to ld Ms . Alv arez , “ [t]he m et h t ha t’s o n m e b ab y .” 13 { 34} T he S ta te m ak es tw o ar gum en ts of ha rm le ss er ro r on a ppe al that i t di d no t m ak e 14 to the dis tr ic t c ourt. F ir st, r el y ing on Sta te v . F ek et e , 199 5- N MS C- 049, ¶

¶ 45- 46, 120 15 N
. M. 290 , 90 1 P.2 d 708, the S ta te c ont en ds tha t D ef en da nt’ s st at em en t t o M s. 16 A lvare z, “ [t ] he m eth tha t’ s on m e baby [, ] ” w as a dm iss ibl e as avol unt ee re d st at em en t, 17 even assum ing th ere wa s a prior M i r a n d a v i o l ation. Sec ond, the State argues that 18 the re wa s no error bec ause the m etham phetam ine on Defe ndant would h ave been 19 la wfu ll y se iz ed an yway in ci de nt to hi s l awfu l ar res t u nd er t he arres t warran t. Se e Sta te21

1 v. Paul T. , 199 9- N MS C- 037, ¶ 11 , 1 28 N. M. 360 , 993 P
. 2d 7 4 ( “ U nde r the F ourth 2 A m en dm en t, the po li ce m ay law fu lly c ondu ct af ull , w ar rantl es s se ar chof

the 3 arre stee’ s person without h is or her perm issio n.”)
. The S tate’ s waiver argum ents are 4 no t p ers ua si ve . 5 { 35} Fe kete is of no ass ist an ce to the S ta te . I n F ek et e , the de fe ndant h ad

sho t and 6 kil le d am anon the str ee t, a nd w en t ba ck to his m ote l r oom for

the nig ht. 199 5- 7 N MS C- 049, ¶

¶ 8- 9. T hr ee state m en ts m ad e by the de fe ndant w ere cons ide re d on 8 ap pe al
. Ba se d onthe ir inv es tig at ion , pol ic e of fi ce rs w en t to the def

en da nt’ s m ote l the 9 ne xt da y

an d a sk edif h e wou ld co m e to th e p ol ic e st at io n a nd be qu es ti on ed
. Id

. ¶ 11. 10 The def

endant respond ed that he had shot a m an the night before and asked if they 11 w an te d th e gun, poi nte d out w he re it w as , an d ha nde d the of fi ce rs e xtr a am

m uni tio n 12 he was c arrying
. Id

. On t he way

to the poli ce station, the defe ndant repeated twice 13 ag ai n th at he ha d sh ot a m an th e ni gh t b efo re. Id

. A t the pol ic e sta tio n, the de fe ndant 1 4 s i g n e daw r i t t e n w a i v e r o f h is M ira nda rig ht s an d g av e a fu ll co nf es si on . Id

. O ur 15 Su pr em e Co urt he ld the de fe ndant’ s f ir st s ta te m en ts at the m ote l ro om w er e not the 16 pr od uc t o f a cu st od ia l i n t e r r o ga ti on an d wer e p ro pe rly adm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e. Id

. 17 ¶ 42. O ur Sup rem e Cou rt th en assum ed that the defendant was in custody on the way 18 to the pol ice station, and concluded that all of his statem ents, exce pt o n e, we re 19 spon tane ous an d no t i n r es pons e to any que sti ons by the pol ic e. A nd, the one que sti on22

1 asked was, “ [W ] hich one[? ] ” in r espons e to the defendant’ s questio n about whether 2 th e m an ha d l iv ed
. Id

. ¶ 45. A s to thi s qu es ti on , our S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed , the 3 er ro r, if a ny , w as harm le ss, be ca

use the de fe ndant o nly

r ep ea te d hi s e ar lie r sta te m en ts 4 atth e m ot el
. Id . ¶ 46 . F inall y , our S upr em e Co urt he ld tha t be ca use the de fe ndant 5 m ad e a val id volu ntary , know ing , a nd i nte lli ge nt w ai ve r of his M ira nda rights before 6 gi vi ng th e fu ll co nf

es si on at t he po li ce s ta ti on , any erro r in ad m it ti ng de fen da nt ’s two 7 pr io r st at em en ts was h arm le ss . Id

. ¶ ¶ 4 6 , 4 9
- 5 1
. I nc o n t r a s tto Fe ke te , De fe n d an t ’s 8 sta t em ent to Ms. A lvarez w as sim ply the product of his p rior un-Mirandiz ed 9 co nf es sio n to O ff

ic er Apoda ca that he ha d m etha m

phe ta m ine on his pe rs on. T his 10 state m en t an d the powder taken fr om De fendant we re subj ect to suppressio n und er 11 th e fru it of th e po is on ou s t ree d oc tri ne . Se e G re en e , 1977 -N MS C- 111, ¶¶ 31- 32

. We 12 do no t further c onsid er Fe kete. 13 { 36} Significantly , the S tate overlooks th e fa ct that De fendant’ s purported 14 “ volu ntary ” st atem ent was a dm itted into evidence only because the district court 15 denied Def

endant’ s m otion to supp ress. Def endant wa s left with rely ing on lapel cam 16 vid eo s w hic h wou ld othe rw ise ha ve be en supp re sse d to sup port hi s de fe nse that the 17 m etham

phetam ine cam e fr om

Ms. A lvarez. Mo r e ov e r , the d i st r i c t c ourt m andated that 18 the e nti re vid eo s be giv ento the j ur y . U nde r the se c ir cu m stanc es , t he re w as no 19 waiv er. Se e Sta te v . Z

am arr ipa , 200 9- N MS C- 001, ¶ 50, 145 N
. M. 402 , 199 P. 3d 8 4623

1 (“ An objec tion is not w aived wher e, after it is overruled, the obj ecting party agree s 2 to the intro duc tio n of

state m en ts s im ilarl y

obj ec tio nable a nd r el ie s on the m to m ak e 3 it s ca se .”). See Saynor v. Sholer , 1967 -N MS C- 063, ¶ 6, 77 N
. M. 579 , 425 P
. 2d 7 43 4 (“ The c ourt having alrea dy overruled the proper [hearsay ] objec tion
. . . counsel was 5 pla ce d inthe r athe r une nvi ab le pos iti on o f ha vin g to m ak e the be st o f a ba d si tua tio n 6 [b y r el y ing on h ears ay ]
. T his w as not aw ai ve r[
. ] ” (i nte rn al qu ot ationm ar ks and 7 ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). 8 { 37} T he S ta te ’ s in ev itabl e di sc ove ry a rg um en t a lso f

ai ls. A s se t f

orth a bove , the 9 susp ect ed m etham

phetam ine seized fr om

De fendant wa s com

bined with sus pected 10 m et h amp h et am ine seized fr om Ms. A lvarez into one bag at the scene by Of ficer 11 Apoda ca . I t i s th er ef or e unkn ow n w ha t, spe ci fi ca ll y , was t es te d po sit ive f or 12 m etha m

phe ta m ine by

Mr
. G om ez . Be ca

use of it s e rr one ous sup pr es si on r uli ng, the 13 dis tr ic t c ourt ne ver de ve lop ed ar ec or d f

or thi s C ourt t o r ev ie w r eg ar din g th e 14 inevitable discovery doctrine or t he officer ’ s contam ination of t he seized evidence. 15 W e ap ply

the r igh t f

or a ny r ea son doc tr ine onl y

if doi ng s o “ is no t un fa ir

to the 16 appellant.” Sta te v . G all eg os , 200 7- N MS C- 007, ¶ 26, 141 N
. M. 185 , 152 P
. 3d 8 28; 17 Be ggs v. City of P ortal es , 20 13 -NMCA- 068, ¶ 32, 305 P
. 3d 7 5 ( “ It

is w ith in this 18 Court’ s discretion to affirm the district court und er the ‘ right for any rea son’ doctrine, 19 but w e w ill not

e xe rcise su chdis cr et ionif it w oul d r es ult

in unf ai rn es s to the24

1 ap pe ll an t.”) . Un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces , i t is un fai r to ap pl y th e d oc tri ne he re, an d we 2 de cl ine to do s o. 3 { 38} Fi n al l y, in o u r d et er m i n at i o n o f w h et h ert h e e rr o r i n ad m i t t i n g De fe n d an t ’s 4 sta te m en t i nto e vid en ce was ha rm le ss b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt, w e not e tha t no 5 be tt er evide nc e w as a va ila ble to the S ta te be sid es D ef en da nt’ s st at em en t—

his 6 confession—t hat Def

endant had m etham

phetam ine on his person, and knew it w as 7 m etha m

phe ta m ine
. O ur

S upr em e Co urt ha s r ec ogni ze d th at th e i m p a c t of ac onf es sio n 8 is virtuallyim

poss ible for a j ury

to igno re: 9 Confessions have profound im pact o n the j ury , so m

uch so that we m ay 10 j ust if

ia bly doubt i ts a

bil ity to put the m out of m ind ev en if

tol d to do s o. 11 A f

ull c onf es sio n inw hic h th e de fe ndant d isc lo se s the m oti ve f or a nd 12 m eans o f the c ri m e m ay te m pt the j ur y to re ly uponthat e vid en ce a lon e 13 in reaching its decision . T he risk that the co n fe ssion is unreliable, 1 4 c o up l e dwi t h t h e p r o f o u n d i mp a c t t h a t t h e c o n f e s s i o n h a s up o n t h e ju ry, 15 requires a r eviewing court to exercise e xtrem e caution before 16 de te rm ini ng tha t the adm iss ion of the co nf es sio n at tri al w as harm le ss. 17 State v. A lvar ez -L o

pez , 200 4- N MS C- 030, ¶ 34, 136 N
. M. 309 , 98 P
. 3d 6 99 18 (a ltera ti on s and o m iss ion s om itt ed ) (quot ing A riz ona v. F ulm ina nte , 499 U
. S. 279 , 19 296 (1 991)
. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . L eo n-D el

fis , 203 F
. 3d 1 03, 112 ( 1st Ci r. 200 0) 2 0 (“ Co n f

e s s i o n s a r e b y n a tu r e h i g h l y p r o b a t i v e a n d l i k e l y t o b e a t t h e c e n t e r o f the 21 jury’ s at te nt io n.” ).25

1 { 39} W e re

j ec t the St at e’ s ar gum en ts of ha rm le ss er ro r an d w e ar e oth er

w ise una ble 2 to c onc lud e be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t the a dm iss ionof D ef en da nt’ s st at em en t 3 into evid ence, in viol ation of Mir an da , was ha rm le ss . 4 CON CLU SION 5 { 40} W e reverse Defendant’ s convictio n and rem and to the district court for a new 6 tri al . In l ig ht of o urho ld in g, we d o n o t a d d r e ss Defen da nt ’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts . 7 { 41} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 9 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e
10 I CONCUR:
11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 12 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e Pr o Tem pore
13 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e (d iss en ti ng )26

1 HAN ISEE, Judge (d issenting). 2 3 { 42} When a defendant is le gally arre sted—as is the case when an NC IC s earc h 4 unde rt ak en

by law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers rev eal s t he ex is te nc e o f an ou ts ta nd in g fe lony 5 ar re st w ar rant— our pr ec ed en t un if orm ly , pla inl y

a nd c onsi ste ntl y

pe rm its a 6 contem poraneous search incident to a rrest. It m atters not that supp lem ental 7 confirm ation of the war rant’ s accura cy

by AP D dispatch wa s ongo ing when 8 De fendant wa s handcuffed, searched, and seated upon a cu rb during th e re m ainder 9 of the of fi ce rs ’ on- sc en e inv es tig at ion
. S ta te d m or e sim ply , a le ga l arr es t c om

m an ds 10 the co nst itu tio na lity

of ase ar chinc ide nt the re to. A s su ch , the m etha m phe ta m ine 11 found in the pill c ontainer, attached to D efendant’ s belt, is adm issib le against him at 12 trial. Also, I would hold De fendant’ s constitu tional right s not to have been violated 13 when he w as asked, w ithou t being first notified of h is right to rem ain silent, whether 14 he possess ed anything on his person that officer s “ shou ld know about” because such 15 aninquir

y is j ust if ie d by the li m ite d M

ira nda

- e x c e p t e dn e e dt o s e c u r e o f f i c e r s a f e t y. 1 6 T h e r e f

o r e , D e f e n d a n t ’ s e n s u i n g s t a t e m e n t n o t i f y i n g o f f i c e r s o f t h e p r e s e n c e o f the 17 m etha m

phe ta m ine on his pe rs on is al so adm iss ibl e ag ai nst him
. I r es pe ct fu lly

dis se nt. 18 { 43} Fi rs t, we ha ve he ld th at ou ts ta nd in g a rres t warran ts pe rm it arres ts . See State v. 19 Grijalva , 1973-NMC A- 061, ¶ 12, 85 N .M. 127, 509 P.2d 894 ( h o l d i n g that 20 poss ession o f an ar

rest w arrant i s not essenti al to the legality of an ar rest based27

1 the re on w he n th e va lid ity of the a rr es t w ar

rant i s no t c ha lle nge d) . De sp ite the 2 Ma j or ity ’ s c ha ra ct erizat io n of the w ar rant at i ssu e to b e a “ poss ibl e ac tiv e fe lon y 3 ar re st w ar rant[ , ] ” Ma

j or ity O p. ¶ 5, our ap pe llate co urts h av e ne ve r he ld— nor sho uld 4 ei the r hol d—tha t arr es t up on an N CI C- re porte d f el ony a rr es t w ar

rant m ay o n l y f o llo w 5 so m e s e c o n d a ry c o n f

i rm a t i o n t h a t t h e w a rr a n t i s a c c u r a t e o r r e m a i n s a c t i v e. W hil e 6 ensuring th e acc uracy

of known arr est warrants is laudable, it is not a constit ution al 7 m an da te . I w oul d m ak e pla in today tha t the ini tia l disc ove ry of an out standi ng f el ony 8 ar re s twa rr an tb y u s e o f a n at i o n al l y-re l i ed -u p o n d at ab as e p er m i t t ed De fe n d an t ’s 9 arre st . 10 { 44} N ext, sear ch es inc ide nt t o arr es ts are a s e ntr en ch ed a s any e xc ep tio n to the 11 oth er w ise ap pli ca

ble w ar rant re qui re m en t tha t se rv es ge ne ra lly , but not a lw ay s, a s th e 12 constitu tional prequel to police look ing for thing s in private places such as pill bo xes 13 at ta ch edto be lt lo op s. State v. Paananen , 2015 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 29, 357 P
. 3d 9 58 ( “ O ne 14 of the m ost f irm ly e sta bli she d e xc ep tio ns to the w ar rant r equir em en t i s th e ri ght on 15 the part

of the gove rn m en t, al w ay s re co gni ze d unde r E ngl isha nd A m er ic anlaw , to 16 se ar chth e pe rs on o f the a cc use d w he n le ga lly a rr es te d. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and 17 ci ta tio n om itt ed )) ; State v. W eidner , 2007 -N MC A -0 63, ¶ 23, 141 N
. M. 582, 158 P
. 3d 18 1025 ( sta tin g th at

the se ar chinc ide nt t o arre st ex ce pti on r equir es the state to pr ove 19 “ tha t the se ar choc curs as ac ont em por an eo us i nc ide nt t o th e law fu l arr es t of the28

1 de fe ndant and i s c onf

ine d to the a re a w ith in the de fe ndant’ s im m ed ia te c ontro l” 2 (in t ernal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). Coupled with Def endant’ s legal 3 ar re s t , t h e a c c o mp a n yi n g s ea rc h o f h i s p er s o n an dp o ck et s co rr ec t s t h e M aj o ri t y’ s 4 co nc lus ionthat the m etha m phe ta m ine D ef

en da nt p oss es se d can not

be use d a ga ins t 5 him a t tri al
. 6 { 45} The m ore c onsti tutio nally intriguin g issu e, one I suggest ou r Suprem e Court 7 ta ke up, is the pr opr ie ty of the un-Mirandized

question asked of Defendant j ust before 8 t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n al l y co m p l i an ts ea rc h i n ci d en tt o h i s arre s t . Wh i l e t h e M aj o ri t y’ s 9 dis al low an ce of

the w or din g e m

plo y ed by the ar re sti ng off

ic er f ind s so m e supp ort i n 10 ot he r juri sd ic ti on s, see Majo rit y Op. ¶¶ 2 0, 2 7- 28 , I wou ld ho ld di ffer en tl y . Quarles 11 he ld tha t “ the ne ed

f or an sw er s to que sti ons in a sit ua tio n po sin g athr ea t t o th e publ ic 12 safety outweighs the need f

or the prophy lactic rule protecting the Fifth Am endm ent's 13 pr ivi le ge ag ai nst se lf

-i nc ri m ina tio n. ” 467 U
. S. at 657. I n a ppr opr ia te c ir cu m stanc es , 14 Quarles ha s b een in te rp ret edto all ow q ue st io ns su ch as th at as ke d h ere. See U nited 15 St at es v. News ome , 475 F. 3d 1221, 1225 (1 1thCi r. 200 7) ( fi ndi ng n o pr obl em w ith 16 the officer ’ s broadly

phrased questio n, “ Is t here any thing or any one in the room that 17 I shou ld k

nowabout ?” ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks o m it ted) ); United States v. L uker , 18 395 F. 3d 8 30, 832 ( 8thCi r. 200 5) (u phol din g the pr opr ie ty of a n of fi ce r’ s qu es tio n 19 regarding the presence of anything in a defendant’ s vehicle “ that shou ldn’t be ther e29

1 or tha t [o ff

ic er s] sho uld

kno w about ”) ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . G orr el l , 360 F
. S upp. 2d 4 8, 2 53 ( D
. D
. C. 20 04 ) (uph ol di ng co ns ti tu ti on al it y of o ffi cer q ue st ion , a ske d whe n pl ac ing 3 the de fe ndant unde r ar

re st, re ga rd ing w he the r the re w as a nythi ng “ she sho uld kno w 4 ab out [?] ”)
. I t i s my vi ew tha t he re , giv entha t of fi ce rs ha d r ec ei ve d ar ep ort and 5 co nf irm ed the p oss ibi lity

that D ef en da nt and a

pe rs on w ithhim

w er e en ga ge d in 6 cr im ina l a ct ivi ty , a nd h ad le ar ne d fr om N CI C of the ex ist ing fe lon y ar re st w ar rant f or 7 D ef en da nt, that the que sti on a ske d of D ef en da nt w as co nst itu tio na lly pr ope r. I a lso 8 note the quest ion was asked in conjunction with the searching officer donn ing gl oves 9 as one pr ec au tio n a ga ins t the pos sib ili ty of sharp obj ec ts s uc h a s ne ed le s. I t se em s to 10 m e that the instant circum stance fits neatly within the exception to th e M ira nda 1 1 r e qu i r e men td r a w n b y Quarles a nd a ppl ie d by th e cases int er pr et ing it
. A s su ch , 12 De fendant’ s responsiv e statem ent, like the m etham phetam ine found in the searc h 13 its el f, is adm iss ibl e ag ai nst him a t tri al
. 14 { 46} The M aj ority ’ s hold ing fails to reiterate the we l l-established cons titutio nal 15 propriety

of the straightforward searc h incident to arr est that resulted in the seizure 16 of m etha m

phe ta m ine f

ro m D ef en da nt. Mo re r eg re tta

bly , it unn ec es sari ly

r ed uc es the 1 7 d a y- t o - d a y s a f

e t y o f l a w e n f o r c e me n t o f

f i c e r s b y d i s a l l o w i n g o n e s i mp l e , s a f e t y18 ge ar ed

inquir y of de fe ndants that are pos sib ly a rm ed , pos sib ly

in posse ssi on o f 1 9 h a z a r d o u s p a r ap h e rn a l i aa s s o c i a t e dw i t h d r u g u s e , o r t h a t o t h e rw i s e ma y p o s e s o me30

1 u n k no wn yet av oi da bl e th reat to off ic ers . I vi ew Quarles t o pe rm i t of f i c e r s t o seek 2 suc h lim ite d assuranc e w ith out f ir st p ro vid ing M

ira nda w ar

nin gs. I w oul d a ff

irm the 3 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of D ef en da nt’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s.
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 5 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e