This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico 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- 405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 computer

generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: March 21, 2022

N o . S

- 1

- SC

- 38750

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
FRANCIS FAIR,

Defendant

- Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Brett R. Loveless, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant

Bennett J. Bauer, Chief Public Defender Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

PER CURIAM.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on the State’s direct interl ocutory appeal filed pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39

- 3

- 3(B)(2) (1972), requesting that this Court reverse the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress statements made to police;
{2} WHEREAS, every member of the Court has considered the briefs and is fully informed on the issues and applicable law;{3} WHEREAS, we review a motion to suppress as a mixed question of fact and law.

State v. Widmer

, 2020

- NMSC

- 007, ¶ 11, 461 P.3d 881. This Court reviews the factual findings of the district court fo r substantial evidence, State v. Jason L. , 2000

- NMSC

018, ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, indulging all reasonable inferences in support of the ruling of the district court, and disrega rding contrary inferences and evidence. Id . The application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. State v. Vandenberg , 2003

- NMSC

- 030, ¶ 17, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19.
{4} WHEREAS, the question presented to the district court was whether Defendant was in custody such that a proper warning under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was necessary before interrogating him.
{5} WHEREAS, substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings that police handcuffed Defendant, told him he was being detained, that they were going to take his clothes, take pictures of him, and take him to the main police station to be processed, and then interrogated him in a police van for forty

- seven minutes, beginning at approximately three a.m. after taking his clothes.
{6} WHE REAS, based on the facts found by the district court, we conclude Defendant was in custody at the time he was interrogated by police as a reasonable person would believe that he or she was not free to leave the scene and Defendant’s freedom of movement was “restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest,” State v. Munoz

, 1998

- NMSC

- 048, ¶ 40, 126 N.M. 535, 972 P.2d 847, requiring that Defendant receive a proper Miranda warning prior to any interrogation. Miranda , 384 U.S. at 479 (providing that polic e may not interrogate a person who has been taken into custody without a prior warning advising of a person’s rights).
{7} WHEREAS, the district court properly concluded that Defendant’s statements to police must be suppressed, as they were made while Defendan t was in custody without having received a proper Miranda warning.
{8} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the district court, suppressing Defendant’s statements to police is affirmed and this matter is remanded to district court for further pr oceedings consistent with this order.
{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice