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

2 Op in ion N um be r: ___ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: F eb ru ar y 22 , 201 8 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5183 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 7 v
. 8 EDWARD J AMES TAPI A, SR., 9 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt. 10 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 11 Wi lli am C . Bi rd sal l, D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Ke nneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Pe tition er
16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Mary Bar ket, A ssistant Appellate D efender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 MA ES, Justice. 3 { 1} In thi s ca se w e addre ss an iss ue of fi rs t im pr es sio n: whe the r ev ide nc e of non 4 violent crim es com

m itted in the presence of a police officer

after an unconst itutio nal 5 traff ic stop m ust b e s u p p ress ed under the Fourth Am endm ent of the United State s 6 Constitu t i on (Fourth Am endm ent) and Ar ticle II, Sec tion 1 0 of the Ne w Me xico 7 Co nst itu tio n ( Arti cl e II, S ec tio n 10 ). D ef en dant E dw ar d T ap ia , S r. e nte re d a 8 co ndi tio na l pl ea

of gui lty to one co unt of fo rg er y , f or sig nin g hi s br oth er ’ s nam e to 9 a traf fic citation charging failure to wear a s eat belt in a m otor vehicle, and re served 10 hi s ri gh t t o app eal
. Se e State v. T api a , 20 15 -NMCA- 05 5, ¶¶ 1, 5, 34 8 P .3d 10 50 . He 11 ap pe al ed to th e Co ur t o f App eal s wh ic h re ve rs edhi s co nv ic ti on . Id

. ¶ 1. T he S ta te 12 pe ti ti on edfora writ of c ert io rari , whi ch we gr an te d. See Ru le 12 -5 02 NMRA. 13 I. Fact s and P rocedu re 14 { 2} Be ca

use D ef en dant e nte re d ac ondi tio na l gu ilty pl ea, ther e w as no tri al
. 15 T he re fo re , the fa ct s ar e ta ke n fr om the supp re ssi on heari ng, the fi ndi ngs of f ac t and 16 co nc lus ion s of

lawe nte re d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, a nd the ple a heari ng. O n Augus t 8, 17 2012 , D ef

en dant and h is c om

panio ns we re tr av el ing w es tbo und on U
. S. H igh w ay 64 18 toward F arm ingto n, in San Juan County . Def endant was a passenger in the back seat 19 of the car. N ew Me xic o S ta te P oli ce O ff ic er T ay naBe na lly

sto ppe d th e car be ca

use2

1 it w as goi ng f

or ty m ile s pe r hour in a fi fty -f ive -m ile -p er -h our

z one a nd b ec au se she 2 wa s unable to read the license plate. Af ter contacting the d ri v er , Be nally noticed 3 D ef en dant w as not w eari ng a se at be lt. Whe n as ke d ab out thi s, D ef en dant told 4 Ben ally

he w as w eari ng a

la p be lt. B en al ly

a ske d hi m

to lif t hi s sh irt so she c oul d 5 ve ri fy he w as w eari ng a

la p be lt. D ef

en dant co m

pli ed an d lif

te d his shi rt , an d B en al ly 6 obse rv ed

he w as not

w eari ng a

la p be lt. A t this poi nt, Be na lly as ke d D ef en dant f or 7 his driver’ s license. De fendant said he didn ’ t have any identification. Benally

then 8 asked Def

endant to w rite down his nam e, date of birth, and social security num ber. 9 He wr ote down “ Robert T apia DOB 03/ 22/1 968” and said he did not know his so cial 10 security

num ber. 11 { 3} Be na lly

c ont ac te d S anJuan Co un ty D isp at cha nd a ske d f

or ade sc ri pti on o f 12 Ro be rt Tap ia
. T he de sc ri pti on g ive n w as inc onsi ste nt w ithBe na lly ’ s ob se rv at ion s 13 of De fendant’ s appearance . De spite the incon sistencies, Benally issued a “ no seat 14 belt” citation for Robert T apia, and Def endant sign ed the citation as Robert Ta pia. 15 { 4} Whil e Be na lly

w as de al ing w ithD ef

en dant, a nothe r of

fi ce r at the sc en e spok e 16 with a sec ond m ale passenger. The second passenger inform ed the second officer that 17 D ef en dant’ s r ea l nam e w as E dw ar d T ap ia
. T he se co nd of fi ce r ha d D ef

en dant e xit

the 18 car and confirm

his nam e. Defendant said his nam e w as Robert T apia but then3

1 re sta te d hi s bi rth da te a s M ar ch22, 197 4. T he se co nd o ff ic er inf orm ed Be na lly of 2 w ha t the se co nd p as se nge r ha d to ld h im , a nd B en al ly the n arr este d De fe ndant f or 3 concealing identit y . La ter, at the j ail, D efendant’ s real ident i t y wa s confirm ed as 4 E dw ar d T ap ia
. H is b irth da te an d so ci al se curi ty num be r w er e al so c onf

irm ed , a nd 5 Be na lly

dis co ve re d th er e w as a n ou tst an din g w ar ra n t f o r D e f e n d an t’ s arr es t f

or f ai lin g 6 to a ppe ar a t the S anJuan M ag istrate Co urt i n A zt ec , N ewMe xic o. 7 { 5} D ef

en dant w as ch ar ge d w ith fo rg er y , co ntr ar y to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30 -1 6- 8 10(A) ( 2006 ); concealing identity , c ontrary to N MSA1978 , S ection 30-22 -3 (1963); 9 and seat belt violatio n, contrar y to NMS A 1978, Se ction 66 -7-372(A) (2001). 10 { 6} D ef

en dant fi le d in the E le ve nth Judi ci al D istri ct Co urt a m oti on to supp re ss a ll 11 ev ide nc e obt ai ne d by Be na lly , c ha lle ngi ng the c onst itu tio na lity of the tra ff ic sto p. 12 T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d th e m oti on t o su ppr es s, he ld tha t the tr af

fi c sto p w as unl aw fu l 13 bec aus e t he d r i ve r

h a d m a de n o m ov i ng v i ol a t i on s a nd t he l i c e ns e p l a t e w as 14 co nc ed ed ly

vis ibl e to the of

fi cer, an d su ppr es se d th e ev ide nc e of the se at be lt 15 vio la tio n. H ow ev er , the e vid en ce of c once al ing ide nti ty

a nd f or ge ry w as not 16 supp ressed. The dist rict cou rt fou nd that th ose crim es “ had not y et been com m itted 17 at the ti m e of

the sto p, ” tha t “ [e ] vid en ce of tho se c ri m es did not ex ist at the tim e of 18 the sto p, ” an d c onc lud ed that “ anunlawfu l stop doe s no t j ust if y the c om m iss ionof4

1 ne w cri m es .” 2 { 7} D ef

en dant e nte re d a co ndi tio na l guilty ple a to the f

or ge ry c harg e, a dm itt ed

to 3 two prior offe nses for habitual sentencing purposes, and reserved the r ight to appeal 4 the supp ression issu e as to both forgery and concealing ide n t i t y. The district court 5 ac ce pte d th e ple a an d se nte nc ed D ef en dant t o eigh te en m onths in the D ep ar tm en t of 6 Co rr ec tio ns, w itha ll but f orty -f ive day s of

the se nt en ce s uspe nde d inf av or of 7 unsu pe rv ise d pr oba tio n. P ur suant t o the ple a, the D ef en dant app ea le d his c onvi ct ion 8 to the Co urt of

Appe al s. 9 { 8} T he Co urt of

Appe al s r ev er se d th e ru lin g of the dis tr ic t cour t and he ld tha t “ the 10 com m issio n of a non-violent , identity -rela ted offense in response to un constitu tional 11 police condu ct does not auto m atically purge the taint of t he unlawful police conduct 12 under federa l law. ” Ta pia , 2015-NMC A- 055, ¶ 17. T he Court of Appeals then 13 en ga ge d ina n a tte nua tio n ana ly sis a nd h el d th at “ the dis co veryof

the e vid en ce of 14 co nc ea li ng id en tity

a nd f or ge ry w as not suf fi ci en tly r em ove d f

ro m the ta int of the 15 il le ga l s to p t o just ify ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce n ot wit hs ta nd in g t he ex cl us io na ry rul e.” 16 Id

. ¶ 19. Conc lud ing tha t the cr im es of co nc ea lin g iden tity an d for ge ry sho uld ha ve 17 been supp ressed under the Fourth Am endm ent, the Court of Ap p ea l s did no t reac h 18 de fen da nt ’s st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im
. Id

. ¶ 20.5

1 { 9} T h e S t a t e p e t i t i o n e df o r c e rt i o r a r i t o r e v i e wt h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r an e wc r i me 2 ex c e p t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i o n a ry r u l e , w h i c h t h i s c o u rth a s p r e v i o u s l y r e c o g n i z e df

or 3 vi ol en t cr im es , als o app li es to no n- vi ol en t, ide nt it y -rel at edcri m es . See N
. M. Co nst . 4 art. VI, § 3; N MSA1978 , § 34-5-14 (1972); Rule 12-502
. W e granted cer tiorari 5 u n d er Rule 12-502(C)(2)(d) (iii) as this case pre sents a signi ficant constituti onal 6 que sti on. 7 II. Stand ard of R eview 8 { 10} “ Inr ev ie w ing atr ia l cou rt ’ s de nia l of am oti on t o su

ppr es s, w e obse rv e the 9 distin ction between fa ctual d e t e r m i nations which ar e subjec t to a subst antial evidence 10 standard

of r ev ie wa nd a

ppl ic at ionof

lawto the f

ac ts[ , ] w hic h is sub

j ec t t o de no vo 11 review .” State v. Nie to , 200 0- N MS C- 031, ¶ 19, 129 N
. M. 688 , 12 P
. 3d 4 42 12 (alteration in original) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). T he district 13 co urt m ad e fi ndi ngs of f ac ts and con cl usi ons of law . T he part ie s do not dis put e the 14 pe rt ine nt f

ac ts, onl y the appl ic at ion of law to thos e fa ct s; the re fo re , our re vie wis de 15 no vo . Id

. ¶ 19; see State v. Pie rce , 200 3- N MC A -1 17, ¶ ¶ 1, 10, 134 N
. M. 388 , 77 16 P.3 d 2 92 (st at in g t ha t wh en th e fac ts are no t in di sp ut e o n a m ot io n t o s up pr es s, we 17 determ ine whether the law wa s correc tly applied to th ose facts). 18 III . D isc us sio n6

1 { 11} T he S ta te a rg ue s th at the ne w cr im e ex ce pti on to the ex cl usi onary ru le doe s no t 2 m ak e ac a t e g o r i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n v i o l e n ta n dn o n - v i o l e n tc r i m e s a n dt h a tt he 3 pot en tia l de te rr en ce of unl aw fu l se ar ch es an d se iz ur e by the S ta te is outw ei ghe d by 4 the cost of excluding evidence of identitycrim es. De fendant asks this Court to affir m 5 the Co urt of

Appe al s r

uli ng tha t the c ri m es of co nc ea lin g ide nti ty an d f or ge ry sho uld 6 ha ve be ensup pr es se d un de r the F ourth A m en dm en t and a sks a lte rn at ive ly f or 7 supp re ssi on unde r A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10
. 8 { 12} U nde r the int er sti tia l appr oa cha dopt ed in State v . G omez , 199 7- N MS C- 006, 9 ¶ 21, 122 N
. M. 777 , 932 P
. 2d 1 , w e as k “ fi rs t w he the r the r igh t be ing a sse rte d is 10 pr ote ct ed

und er the fe de ra l cons tit

uti on. If it is, the n th e sta te c onst itu tio na l c la im is 11 no t r e a c he d.” Id

. ¶ 19 . If it is no t, we ex am in e th e st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im
. Id

. 1 2 H ow ev e r , “ w e m a y d i v e r g e f r o m f e d e r a l p r e c e d e n t w h e r e t h e f e d e r a l a n a l y sis is 13 flaw ed, where there are s t ructural diffe rences betw een the state and fe deral 14 governm ents, or because o f distinctiv e N ewMexico chara cteristics.” Sta te v . G arc ia , 15 2009 -N MS C- 046, ¶ 27, 147 N
. M. 134 , 217 P
. 3d 1 032 (c iti ng Gom ez , 1997-NMS C16 006, ¶ 19). 17 A . A tt en ua ti on D oc tr in e an d th e N ew C ri m e Ex ce pt ion 18 { 13} T he F ourth A m en dm en t pr ohi bit s un re as ona ble se ar ch es a nd s ei zure s by7

1 po li ce. He rring

v. United States , 555 U
. S. 135 , 139 ( 2009 ). “ A s age ne ra l r ule , the 2 federa l constitu tion
. . . re q uires suppressio n of evidence obtained in a m anner that 3 runs afoul of the Fourth Am endm ent.” Sta te v . San tiago , 201 0- N MS C- 018, ¶ 10, 148 4 N.M . 144, 231 P. 3d 60 0. T he requirem ent that evidence obtained as a result of an 5 un co ns ti tu ti on al sea rch or se iz ur e be su pp res se d is kn own as t he “ ex cl us io na ry rul e.” 6 Sta te v . I

ngra m , 1998 -N MC A -1 77, ¶ 9, 126 N
. M. 426 , 970 P
. 2d 1 151. T he pur pose 7 of the e xclu si on ary ru le und er the F ourth A m en dm en t ha s be ena rt ic ula te d a s th e 8 de te rren ce of un la wfu l go ve rn m en t be ha vi or . See Elkins v. United States , 364 U.S
. 9 206, 217 (196 0) (stating purpo se of the ex cl u s i o nary rule is “ to deter—to com pel 10 respect f

or the constitu tional gu aranty . . . by rem ovin g the incentive to di sregard it”). 11 “ [T ] he exclusion ary

rule encom

passes both the ‘ prim ary evidence obtained as a direct 12 re sul t of an ill eg al se ar ch or se iz ur e’ an d . . . ‘ ev ide nc e la te r dis co ve re d and f ound to 13 be derivative of an illegality ,’ the s o -c al led ‘ fruit of the poison ous tree.’ ” Utah v. 14 Str ie ff , 136 S
. Ct
. 205 6, 206 1 ( 2016 ) (quot ing Segura v. United States , 468 U
. S. 796 , 15 804 (198 4)). The rule is not absolut e, but “ applicable only
. . . wher e its deterre nce 16 benefits outweigh its subs tantial social costs.” Str ie ff , 136 S
. Ct
. a t 20 61 ( om iss ion 17 in origin al) (inter

nal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 18 { 14} T he U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt ha s thus r ec ogni ze d thre e exc ep tio ns to the8

1 exclusion ary

rule involvi ng the causal relationship betwee n the uncon stitut ional act 2 and the discov ery

of evidence. 3 Fi rs t, the ind ep en de nt s our ce doc tr ine a llo w s tr ia l co urts to a dm it 4 ev ide nc e obt ai ne d ina n un la w fu l se ar chif of fi ce rs ind ep en de ntl y 5 ac qui re d it

f ro m ase parate , ind ep en de nt s our ce . Sec ond, the ine vit ab le 6 dis co ve ry doc tr ine al low s for the adm iss ionof e vid en ce that w oul d have 7 be endis co ve re d e ve n w ith out the unc onst itu tio na l sour ce . T hir d . .
. is 8 the a tte nua tio n do ctri ne : E vid en ce is adm iss ibl e w he n th e co nne ct ion 9 be tw ee n unco nst itu tio na l polic e co nduc t and the e vid en ce is re m ote or 10 ha s be enint er

ru pte d by som e int er

ve nin g c ir cu m stanc e, so tha t the 11 interest protected by the constitu tional guarantee th at has been violated 12 w oul d no t be se rv ed by sup pr es sio n of

the e vid en ce obt ai ne d. 13 Id

. at 2061 (om issio n in origin al) (inter nal quot ation m arks and citations om itted). 14 { 15} U nde r the atte nua tio n doctri ne , the gove rn m en t c ana dm it ev ide nc e w he n “ the 15 relationship betwee n t h e u n lawf ul search or seizure and the challenged evidence 16 be co m es su ffi ci en tl y

weakto di ss ip at e an y

tai nt result ing f

ro m th e o rig in al il le ga li ty.” 17 U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 155 F. 3d 10 51, 1060 (9th Cir. 1998 ). T he United State s 18 Su pr em e Co urt i n B row n v . I lli noi s identified three fac tors by which a c ourt m ay 19 de te rm ine if

se iz ed e vid en ce ha s be enpur ge d of the ta int of the or igi na l i lle ga lity : ( 1) 20 the la pse d ti m e be tw ee n th e il le ga li ty a nd the a cquis iti on o f the e vid en ce , ( 2) the 21 pr es ence of in terve nin g c ir cu m stanc es , a nd ( 3) the pur pose a nd f

la gr an cy of the 22 of fic ia l m is co nd uc t. See 422 U.S . 590, 603-04 (1975). 23 { 16} “ It

w as [the atte nua tio n doc tr ine ] tha t spaw ne d the ne w cr im e ex ce pti on t o th e9

1 exclusion ary

rule. ” Christopher J. D unne, Sta te v . B roc ugl io: T he Sup re m e Co urt

of 2 Co nne ct ic ut’

s M odi fic ati on o f the Ne w C

rim e E xc ep tio n to the Excl us io nary R ule , 3 23 Q L R 853, 860 (2 004)
. T he ne w cr im e ex ce pti on w as fi rs t ar tic ula te d b ythe 4 Elev en th Cir cu it Co urt of Appe al s in United States v. B ailey , 691 F
. 2d 1 009 (1 1th 5 Ci r. 19 83 ). See Dun ne , supra , at861
. I n Bailey , the C ourt of Appeals held that 6 “ notwithstand ing a st rong causal con nection in fact betw een law less poli ce conduct 7 and a defendant’ s response, if the defendant’ s response is itself a new , distinct crim e, 8 then the pol ice constitutio nally m ay arre st the defendant for that crim e. ” 691 F.2d at 9 1016 -1 7. 10 { 17} Whether the newcrim e exce p t i o n is part of the attenuation doctrine or a 11 se parate e xc ep tio n to the e xc lus ion ar y r ule is unc le ar . 1 McC

ormick on E

vidence § 12 180, at 972-73 (Kenneth S. Broun ed., 7th ed. 2013) (“ Som e courts appear to r egard 13 the d o ct ri n e as sim

ply a specialize d application of the attenuation of taint do ctrine, 14 unde r w hic h in te rv en ing vol unt ar y c ri m ina l co nduc t usua lly a nd p er ha ps i ne vit ab ly 15 atte nuate s th e ta int

of il le ga lity pr ec ed ing that c ondu ct . . . . Ot he r co urts a ppe ar to 16 re gard the doc tr ine a s ase parate e xc ep tio n to e xc lus ion ar y r equi rem en ts, ba se d on 17 co nsi de ratio ns d ist ing uis hable f ro m tho se sup portin g th e at te nua tio n of ta int18 The S tate asserts that “ [t] here is no ca t eg o ri cal or bright-line [newcrim e] 1 19 ex cep ti on .” 10 1 doctrine.” ( footnot es om itted)). 1 2 { 18} T he T en th Ci rc uit Co urt of Appe al s a dopt ed the ne wc ri m e ex ce pti on i n United 3 Sta tes v . W

aupe ke nay , 973 F. 2d 1533 (10th Cir. 1992 ), a case that arose ou t of Ne w 4 Me xic o. I n W

aupe ke nay , the d ef

en d an t p ointed a rifle at tr ibal officer s after they 5 un la wfu ll y

en te redhi s h om e. Id

. a t 15 35. T he Co urt c onc lud ed th at despi te the 6 unlawful entry , the def

endant no lo nger had a re asonable e xpectation of privacy when 7 he assaulted the officers and that the evidence ag ainst him would not be sup pressed 8 un de r t h e F o ur th Am en dm en t. Id

. a t 15 36- 38. T he opi nio n no te s th at c ourts h av e 9 ap pli ed dif fe re nt r at ion al es in sim ilar ca se s bu t c onc lud es “ w ha te ve r ratio na le is use d, 10 the r es ult

is the sam e: E vid en ce of ase parate , ind ep en de nt c ri m e ini tiate d a ga ins t 11 police officer s in their presence after an illegal entry or arre st w ill not be suppressed 12 under the Fourth Am endm ent.” Id

. a t 15 38. 13 { 19} W

aupe ke nayi n v o l v e dad e f e n d a n tr e a c t i n g v i o l e n t l y t o w ar dp o l i c e o f

f i c e r s, 14 an d m an y

state s, inc lud ing N ewMe xic o, ha ve a dopt ed the ne wc ri m e ex ce pti on t o th e 15 e xc lu si on ary ru le in su ch cas es . Id

. a t 15 37 ( lis tin g nu m er ous ca se s) ; se e State v. 16 Tr av is on B. , 20 06 -NMCA- 146, ¶ 11, 140 N
. M. 783 , 149 P
. 3d 9 9. I n Tr av is on B. , 17 officer s im

properly entered the scene of a dom estic distu rbance and encountered an11

1 an gr y c hil d, w ho the n ba tte re d th e of fi ce rs. 2006-N MC A -1 46 ¶ 2. T he Co urt of 2 Appe al s e sse nti al ly

a dopt ed the ne wc ri m e ex ce pti on w ith out e xpl ic itl y

statin g so 3 wh en i tco n cl u d ed t h at “ [a ]l t h o u g h p re ci p i t at ed b y t h e [ u n l aw fu l ] en t ry, [ c]h i l d ’s 4 ac tio ns a ga ins t the of

fi ce rs c onst itu te d ne wc ri m ina l ac tiv ity that i s no t su

bj ec t t o th e 5 ex cl usi onary

r ule
. ” 200 6- N MC A -1 46, ¶ 9. 6 { 20} Ca se s w he re de fe ndants c om m itt ed a n iden tity -r el at ed cr im e in the pr es en ce of 7 po li ce after an un la wfu l sear ch or s ei zu re are m uc h l es s co m

m on bu t d o e xi st . Two 8 fe de ra l a

ppe llate c ourts h av e ru le d th at ident it y -r el at ed

c ri m es c om

m itt ed in the 9 pr e s e n c e o f o f

f i c e r s a f t e r a n i l l e g a l s e i z u r e w e r e n o t p r o t e c t e d u n d e r t h e F our th 10 Am en dm en t. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . P ry or , 32 F
. 3d 1 192, 1195 -1 196 (7 th C ir
. 199 4) 11 (i nvol vin g ade fe ndant’ s m isr ep re se nta tio n of ide nti ty to fe de ra l a ge nts ); United 12 Sta tes v . G arc ia-

Jo rdan , 860 F
. 2d 1 59, 161 ( 5thCi r. 198 8) ( hol din g th at a 13 de fe ndant’ s f

al se sta te m en t of cit iz en shi p wa s a ne wa nd d ist inc t c ri m e co m m itt ed in 14 the border agent’ s presence and not barred by the exclusion ary

rule). 15 { 21} So m e sta te co urts h av e al so h el d th at ide nti ty c ri m es c om

m itt ed a ft er aF ourth 16 Am endm ent violatio n fall under the ne w cr i m e exception to the exclusio nary rule. 17 Se e, e . g. , P eo

ple v . D iam ond , 353 N
. Y
. S. 2d 6 88, 690 -9 1 ( 1974 ) (impers ona tin g a 18 tr an sit auth or ity c ondu ct or

w as ane wc ri m e not

ta int ed by i lle ga l arr es t) ; State v.12

1 S u ppah , 369 P. 3d 11 08, 1112 (Or. 2016 ) ( Supp ah II ) ( co n cl u d i n g a d ef

en d an t ’s 2 co m m iss ionof

ne w cri m e of

pr ovi din g de puty

w ithf al se na m e an d a ddr es s 3 suf fi ci en tly a tte nua te d ta int

of il le ga l st op) ; Sta te v . Earl , 200 4 U T App 1 63, ¶ ¶ 23- 4 24, 92 P
. 3d. 167 (h old ing tha t a de fe ndant giv ing of fi ce r a fa lse na m e an d birth d at e 5 w a s a n i n t e rv e n i n g a c ta n dn o t t h e p r o du c to f t h e o f f i c e r ’s i l l e g a l e n t ry i n t o t h e h o me 6 in whic h de fe ndant w as stay ing ); but se e Sta te v. B roc ugl io , 779 A
. 2d 7 93, 801 -8 02 7 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001 ) (h oldin g that a defendant’ s verbal utterances to the office rs 8 re que sti ng tha t the y le av e his pr ope rty or he w oul d le t hi s do g lo ose did not c onst itu te 9 a new , distinct crim e). 10 { 22} D ef

en dant a sks us t o lim it the ap pli catio n of the atte nua tio n for ne w cr im es to 11 only t h o s e ca s es wher e an individ ual endangers the safety of police or the public. 12 De fendant poin ts out th at in Ne w Me xi co t h e ea rl y cases holding new crim es that 13 w er e su ffi ci en tly

a tte nua te d f

ro m the ini tia l i lle ga lity

inv olv ed a ssa ult s and thr eats 14 ag ai ns t o ffi cers du rin g u nl awfu l s earc he s an d s ei zu res . Se e, e . g. , S t a t e v. 15 Ch am be rla in , 198 9- N MC A -0 82, 109 N.M. 1 73, 783 P
. 2d 4 83; Sta te v . D oe , 197 8- 16 N MS C- 072, 92 N
. M. 100 , 583 P
. 2d 464. Ba se d on tha t hi sto ry , D ef en dant s ugge sts 17 tha t the ne wc ri m e atte nua tio n ana ly sis w as “ m eant to pr ote ct pol ic e of fi ce rs a nd the 18 publ ic from

violent con duct.” And De fendant poin ts out th at the analy sis has evolv ed13

1 into a “ virtually

autom atic and deeply -ingrained exception to the exclusionary rule” 2 w he n th e ca se inv olv es vio le nc e, thr eats, or r es ist an ce to lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs . 3 Se e, e . g. , U

nit ed Sta tes v . Spr ink

le , 106 F. 3d 61 3, 619 (4th Ci r. 1 9 9 7 ) (holdin g that 4 firing of gun at officer

after initial un lawf

ul stop triggered exception to exclusio nary 5 ru le ); P eo

ple v . V illarr ea l , 604 N
. E
. 2d 9 23, 928 ( Il l. 199 2) ( de cl in in g to app ly 6 ex cl usi onary ru le to supp re ss ev ide nc e of a ggr av at ed

ba tte ry r eg ar dle ss o f le ga lity

of 7 of fi ce rs ’ e ntr

y int o ho m e) ; Co m m onw ea lth v . J ohns on , 245 S. W
. 3d 821, 824 ( K y . Ct
. 8 App. 2008 ) (f

indin g illegal entry

into resid en ce bypolice officer did no t render 9 evidence of subsequent assault a gainst offic er inadm issib le under exclusion ary rule); 10 Sta te v . H

erre ra, 48 A
. 3d 1 009, 102 6 ( N
. J. 201 2) ( fi ndi ng e xc lus ion ar y r ule doe s no t 11 ap ply to ev ide nc e of

de fe ndants ’ a ttem

pt to m ur de r sta te tr oope r, r eg ar dle ss o f the 12 illegality

of the initial stop ). 13 { 23} T he S ta te co nt ends the Co urt of Appe al s a

ppl ie d th e co rr ec t ana ly sis to the 14 fa ct s but ca m e to the w ro ng con cl usi on in re ve rs ing the dis tr ic t c ourt. A cc or din g to 15 the S ta te , the Co urt of Appe al s e rr ed

“ in w ei ghi ng the pot en tia l f or de te rr en ce too 16 gr eat ly anddi sc ou nt in g t he so ci et al co st of e xc lu di ng ev id en ce o f id en ti ty crim es .” 17 T he S ta te s ub m its th at und er f ed er al lawthe re sho uld

a lw ay s be aba lanc ing of the 18 costs and benefits of exclusi on and th at the Court of Appeals im properly discoun ted14

1 the c ost s of

e xc lud ing e vid en ce of

non - vio le nt, ide nti ty -r el at ed c ri m es . T he S ta te a lso 2 sugg ests that non-vio lent crim es can be as sociallyharm ful as violent crim es and that 3 w e shou ld l ook to the pe na lty f or an of fe nse as it “ ‘ re ve al s th e le gis la tur e’ s j udgm en t 4 ab out the of fe nse ’ s se ve ri ty . ’ ” (quot ing Lewis v. United S tates , 518 U
. S. 322 , 326 5 (1996) (discuss ing th e right to jury trial))
. 6 { 24} By co ntr as t, D ef

en dant dir ec ts this Co urt t o th re e ca se s f ro m oth er j ur isd ic tio ns 7 t h a th a v e d e c l i n e d t o e x t e n dt h e n e wc r i me e x c e p t i o n t o n o n - v i o l e n ta c t s b y a 8 de fe ndant: Pe ople v. B rown , 80 2 N.E.2d 35 6 (I ll . App . Ct. 2 00 3) , Sta te v . B adessa , 9 885 A. 2d 4 30 (N
. J. 200 5) , a nd Sta te v . Sup pah , 334 P
. 3d 4 63 ( O r. Ct
. App. 201 4) 10 ( Supp ah I

). W e fi nd th es e cas es di st in gu is ha bl e fo r th e rea so ns be lo w. 11 { 25} W it h regar d to Supp ah , t h e O r e g o n S up r e m e C o u rth a s r e v e r s e dt h e O r e gon 12 Co urt of

Appe al s in Supp ah I

si nc e Defen da nt fil edhi s b rie f. See Suppa h II , 369 P
. 3d 13 at 1108
. T he f

ac ts i n Supp ah ar e sim ilar to this c as e. T he de fe ndant i n Supp ah wa s 14 driving his girlfriend’ s car a n d wa s stop ped for a tr affic violatio n that was later 15 de te rm in edto be im

pr op er. Id

. at 111 0- 11. T he de fe ndant k ne whis dr ive r’ s li ce nse 16 w as sus pe nde d and d id n ot w an t hi s girlf rie nd ’s c ar

to ge t t ow ed , so h e ga ve the 17 de puty

his f ri en d’ s nam e an d bi rth da te an d sa id he did not ha ve a phy sic al or m ai lin g 18 ad dr es s. Id

. a t 1110. T he de puty ch ec ke d the inf orm at ion w ith a disp at ch er w ho t old15

1 the de puty tha t the fa lse na m e cam e ba ck as ha vin g a sus pe nde d lic en se. Id

. T he 2 de put yc i t e dt h e d e f

e n d a n tf o r d r i v i n g o n as u s p e n d e dl i c e n s e b u td i dn o tc i t e t he 3 defendant for the tra ffic violation that led him to stop the defendant in the first place. 4 Id

. 5 { 26} A m onth a ft er

the tr af fi c stop , the de fe ndant ca lle d th e pol ic e an d to ld the m he 6 ha d li ed ab ou t h is na m e. Id

. A s a res ult , the state dis m iss ed the c harg es a ga ins t the 7 de fe ndant’ s fri en d an d c harg ed the de fe ndant w ithdr ivi ng w hil e sus pe nde d and 8 gi vi ng fal se in fo rm at io n to a p ol ic e o ffi cer. Id

. Be fo re tr ia l, the de fe ndant m ove d to 9 supp re ss the f

al se state m en ts h e m ad e to po li ce when he w as sto ppe d and the 10 st at em en ts he m ad e a m on th aft erwar d. Id

. a t 11 10- 11. T he tri al co ur t de nie d th e 1 1 mo t i o n t o s up p r e s s , c o n c l u d i n g t h a tt h e d e f e n d a n t ’s d e c i s i o n t o g i v e t h e d e p u t y a 12 false nam e and his decision to c om e forw ard w ith truthful inform ation a m onth later 13 were n ot th e p ro du ctof t he un la wfu l s to p. Id

. A ft er a be nc h tr ia l, the c ourt f ound the 14 de fe ndant gu il ty

of giv ing f al se inf orm at ionto a pol ic e of

fi ce r but not gui lty of 15 dr iv in g wh il e su sp en de d. Id

. 16 { 27} On initial appeal, the Or egon Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that 17 the e vid en ce sho uld

ha ve be ensup pr es se d and r ev er se d th e tr ia l c ourt’ s j udgm en t. 18 Supp ah I

, 334 P
. 3d a t 47 6. T he O re gon Su pr em e Co urt r ev er se d the Court of Appe al s16

1 an d affi rm ed th e tri al co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Supp ah II , 369 P
. 3d 2 at11 17 , con cl ud in g t ha t “ in gi vi ng th e d ep ut y a fal se na m e an d a d d r e s s . . . , 3 defendant knowingl y

chose to do so m ething o ther tha n what the deputy had 4 asked.
. . . The reason for defendant’ s m isrepresentation was unconnected, other than 5 i n a ‘ but-for’ sense, f

rom the unlawful stop that preceded it.” Id

. a t 11 16. T he 6 Or eg o n Su p re m e C o u r t h el d“ t h e s t o p h ad n o ap p re ci ab l e e ff ec to n t h e d ef

en d an t ’s 7 d ec i s i o n t o g i v e th e d ep u t y a fa l s e n ame an d d at e o f b i rt h ,” an di twa s t h e d ef en d an t ’s 8 in d e pe nd en t, u np ro m

pt edde ci si on th at“ at te nu at edth e ta in t o f th e u nl awfu l s to p.” 9 Id

. a t 11 17. 10 { 28} Se co nd, Defe ndant r el ie s onthe hol din g in B adessa wher e the N ewJersey 11 Suprem e Court found that evidence gathered by the police after an uncons titutio nal 12 tr af fi c sto p sh oul d have be ene xclu de d in a p ro se cu tio n f or r ef usa l t o su bm it to a 13 b r e a t h a l y zer t es t. See 885 A
. 2d 4 30. I n B adessa , t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s s t o p pe d by 1 4 p o l i ce af

t erh e t u rn ed o n t o a s i d e s t r e e ti n an ap p ar en tat t emp tt o ev ad e a DWI 15 ch eckpo in t. Id

. a t 43 3. P oli ce obs er

ve d si gns of

int oxi catio n c om ing fro m the 16 de fen da nt an d h adhi m pe rfo rm fi el d s ob rie ty test s. Id

. A ft er c om ple tin g th e te sts , 17 th e of fic er arre st ed th e de fen da nt fo r dr iv in g whi le un de r th e in flu en ce. Id

. La ter at 18 the police station , the def endant refused to subm it to a breathaly zer t es t , s o h e w as17

1 charged w ith DW I and ref usal to su bm it to a breathaly zer test which is a distinct 2 cri m e u nd er New J ers ey law. Id

. T he de fe ndant cha lle nge d th e le ga lity of the sto p. 3 T he tr ia l cour

t foun d that the of

fi ce r did not ha ve pr oba

ble ca use to stop the de fe ndant 4 fo r D W I but did ha ve pr oba ble ca use to re que st the br eatha ly ze r te st and a cquit te d th e 5 de fe ndant o n th e D W I ch ar ge but co nvict ed him f or r ef usi ng the br eatha ly ze r te st. 6 Id. a t4 3 3
. A n ap p e l l a t e p a n e l c o n c l u d e dt h a ta l t h o u g h t h e o f f i c e r l a c k e dp r obable 7 ca use f or the sto p, th ere wa s pr oba ble c au se to supp ort the r eque st f or the 8 br eat ha lyzer te st . Id

. a t 434. T he pane l af

fi rm ed the c onvi ct ionf

or r ef usi ng t o su

bm it 9 to the br eatha ly ze r te st, ind ic at ing tha t the re fu sa l w as suf fi ci en tly atte nua te d f

ro m the 10 il le ga l s to p t o ju st ify adm is si on of t he refu sa l ev id en ce. Id

. 11 { 29} T he N ewJe rs ey S upr em e Co urt di sa gr ee d, statin g: 1 2 Un d ert h e p re s en tci rc u m s t an ce s , we ca n n o ts u b s c r i b e t o t h e [ s ]ta t e’s 13 posi tio n that a br eatha ly ze r re fu sa l and D W I ar e dis tin ct f or pur pose s of 14 ane xc lus ion ar

y r ule a na ly sis
. . . . T he fa ct s ne ce ssary to pr ose cu te tho se 15 two offe nses are inextricably intertwined. Af ter all, to secure a refusal 16 co nvi ct ion , the [ s] ta te m ust pr ove that the ar

re sti ng off

ic er ha d pr oba

ble 17 ca

use to be lie ve that the pe rs on h ad be endr ivi ng whil e unde r the 18 in flu en ce an d was pl aced un de r arre st forDW I.” 19 Id

. at 436 (internal quotatio n m arks and citations om itted). 20 { 30} The New Jersey refusal statut e’ s dual requirem ents of p robable cause and an 21 arre st for D W I w ere critical to the re fusal analy sis and thus the outcom e o f th e case .18

1 Inoth er

w or ds, the N ewJe rs ey

statut e re nde re d th e cr im e of r ef usi ng a br eath t es t 2 “ inextricably

intertwined” w ith a DW I arre st and com pelled a conclusion that refusal 3 co uld not be atte nua te d fr om an ini tia l sto p fo r D W I. Id

. ; see N.J. St at . Ann . § 4 39:4 -50.4a. T he B adessa c as e is thus dis tin gui sha ble f ro m the pr es en t c as e ba se d on 5 the spe ci fi c cr im es a t i ssu e an d th e N ewJe rs ey r ef usa l st at ute ’ s tr eatm en t of

tho se 6 cr im es . 7 { 31} No such specific statutory treatm ent applies to th e cr i m es with w hich 8 De fendant wa s charged in this case. In Ne w Me xico, con cealing identityand forgery 9 m ay be distinct crim es from , and no t co n d i t ioned up on, conduct giv ing rise to an 10 in it ia l s to p. Se e Sta te v . R uff ins , 1990 -N MS C- 035, ¶ 11, 109 N
. M 668, 789 P
. 2d 6 16 11 (h old ing that f

or ge ry is co m ple te d w he n a de fe ndant p oss es sin g th e re qui sit e int en t: 12 (1 ) fa lse ly

m ak es or

a lte rs aw ri tin g w hic h purp orts t o have le ga l ef fi ca cy , ( 2) 13 phy sic al ly

de liv er s a fo rg ed w ri tin g, or (3 ) pa sse s an in te re st i n af or ge d w ri tin g) ; § 14 30- 22- 3 ( “ Co nc ea lin g iden tity co nsi sts of c onc ea lin g on e’ s tr

ue na m e or

ide nti ty , or 15 dis gui sin g on es el f w ithint en t to obs tr uc t the due e xe cu tio n of

the lawor

w ithint en t 16 to intim idate , h i n d er or interrupt any publi c office r or any

other person in a legal 17 perform an ce of his dut y or the exerc ise of his rights u nder the law s of the United 18 States or of this state. ”).19

1 { 32} Fi na ll y , Pe ople v. B rown is n o m or e pe rs ua siv e. I n Pe ople v. B rown , a police 2 office r unlawfully

detained Brown sim

ply because he w as standing in front of a 3 cl ose d bu sin es s. 802 N
. E
. 2d at 357- 58. T he of fi ce r as ke d B ro w n f

or ide nti fi catio n 4 a n d B ro wn re pl ie d h e h adno ne . Id

. a t 35 8. W

he n th e of

fi ce r as ke d B ro w n f

or his 5 na m e, ad dr es s, an d da te of bi rth , B ro wn pr ov id ed a fal se na m e an d da te of bi rth
. Id

. 6 T he of fi ce r the n r ad ioe d inthi s in fo rm at ion an d dis co ve re d th er e w as aw ar rant f or 7 Bro wn’s arre st . Id

. Br ow n w as ult im at el y

c harg ed w ithobs tr

uc tin g j ust ic e, giv ing 8 a fal se na m e, an d fa ls el y st at in g th athe was n ot carry in g i de nt ifi cat io n. Id

. Bro wn 9 m ove d to sup pr es s hi s st at em en ts as the y w er e obt ai ne d a s ar es ult of his unl aw fu l 10 de te nt io n. Id

. at 35 7- 58
. The tri al co ur t gran te d t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Id

. a t 35 7. 11 T he state appe al ed , a nd the Appe llate Co urt of I lli noi s a ff

irm ed the tr ia l c ourt, 12 co nc lud ing that B ro w n w as sim ply r espond ing to the of

fi ce r’ s qu es tio nin g in 13 conjunction with the illegal seizure and that “ [r] efusing to p rovide identification does 14 not raise the sam e policy concerns as assaulting a la w enforcem ent officer .” Id

. at 15 360. 16 { 33} W e de cl ine to f oll owthe r ea soni ng i n Pe ople v. B rown , 802 N
. E
. 2d a t 36 8. 17 Whil e w e ac know le dge that l ike the de fe ndant i n Pe ople v. B rown , D efendant w as 18 unl aw fu lly

se iz ed w he n spe ak ing w ithBe na lly , D ef en dant’ s st at em en ts t o B en al ly20

1 we re n o td i re ct l y co n n ec t ed t o t h e s ei zu re ex ce p ti n a “b u t - f o r ” s en s e. Be n al l y’ s 2 obse rv at ionthat D ef

en dant w as not

w eari ng a

se at be lt pr om

pte d her to ask

him f or 3 ide nti fi catio n. T he re is nothin g th at ind ic at es Benal ly o bta ine d th e ev ide nc e of 4 De fendant’ s false statem ents by exploiti ng the un lawf

ul seizure. 5 { 34} The par

ties do no t dispu te the district court’ s finding that Benallylacked 6 re as ona

ble sus pic ion to i nit ia te the tr af fi c sto p. T he que sti on b ef or e thi s C ourt i s: d o 7 the B row n v . I

lli noi s factors suggest Def

endant’ s conduct was sufficiently attenuated 8 be tw ee n th e ini tia l st op and D ef en dant’ s f

al se ide nti fi catio n to rend er the 9 ex cl usi onary

r ule ina ppl ic ab le to the ne we vid en ce . Thi s is an iss ue of f ir st 10 im pr es sio n be fo re the Co urt. 11 { 35} We n o w ap p l y t h e t h r e e g e n e r a l a t t e n u a t i o n f a c t o r s f r o m B row n v . I

lli noi s to 12 as se ss the a ttenuat ionin thi s c as e be tw ee n th e ill eg al pol ic e co nduc t and the 1 3 d i s c o v e ry o f

e v i d e n c e . T h e f

i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e qu i r e s t h a tw e r e v i e wt h e l ap s e dt i me 14 betwee n the illegalityand the acquisitio n of the evidence, which in this case favors 15 supp re ssi on, a s it

w as onl y asho rt ti m e be tw ee n th e tr af

fi c sto p and D ef

en dant’ s f al se 16 ide nti fi catio n. A li ttl e m or e tim e pa sse d be fo re D ef en dant s ign ed

the tr af fi c ci ta tio n 17 co nta ini ng h is b ro the r’ s id en tif ie rs , but it w as sti ll onl y

m inu te s. 18 { 36} T he se co nd c onsi de ratio n r equir es that w e loo k to a ny int er venin g21

1 ci rc um stanc es that se rv e to atte nua te the il le ga l de te nti on f ro m the dis co ve ry

of the 2 evidence. An intervening circum stance is one that breaks the relationship betwee n 3 the il le ga l c ondu ct an d th e ev ide nc e obt ai ne d. V ar iou s c ourts h av e co nc lud ed a 4 de fe ndan t’ s in de pe nde nt c ri m ina l a ct m ay it se lf c onst itu te a n in te rv en ing 5 ci rcu m st an ce s uf

fic i e n t t o pu rg e th e ta in t o f th e in it ia l i ll eg al it y . United States v. 6 Ki ng , 724 F
. 2d 2 53, 256 ( 1st Ci r. 198 4) ( co nc lud ing a “ shoo tin g w as a n in de pe nde nt 7 int er ve nin g a ct

w hic h purg ed

the ta int of the pr ior il le ga lity ”) ; Sta te v. Ne lso n , 201 5 8 OK CR 10 , ¶ 23, 25, 356 P.3d 1113 (hold ing defendant’s behavior in wa lking aw ay 9 from traff ic stop f or failing to signal left-hand turn was an intervening circum stance 10 w hic h purg ed

a ny ta int or igi na tin g f

ro m the ill eg al sto p)
. T o hold othe rw ise “ w oul d 11 al lowade fe ndant c ar te blanc he auth or ity

to go o n w ha te ve r cr im ina l r am pa ge he 12 de sir ed

a nd d o so w ith virtua l leg al im puni ty as lon g a s su cha ct ion s st em m ed f ro m 13 the chain of causation started by the police m iscondu ct.” Se e Sta te v . M isk im ins , 435 14 N. W .2d 217, 221 (S.D .1989). A nd in m any scenarios, courts conclude that even 15 independ ent, non-violent crim i nal acts following an unlawful detention m ay 16 co nst itu te int er

ve nin g c ir cu m stanc es , r ea soni ng tha t the c ondu ct is ne ith er n at ur al nor 17 pr ed ic ta

ble , a nd thus in su ffi ci en tly c onne ct ed

to the ini tia l i lle ga lity

to w ar rant 18 ap pl ic at io n o f th e ex cl us io na ry rul e. Se e, e . g. , E lli

son v. Sta te , 410 A.2d 51 9, 52722

1 (D el. Super. Ct. 1979 ). 2 { 37} H er e , D e f

e n d a n t ’ s m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f h i s i d e n t i t y

w a s s u c h a n i n t e rv en ing 3 ci r c um s t an c e . A l th o ugh the int er ac tio n be tw ee n th e pol ic e an d D ef en dant c am e ab out 4 initiallyas a r esult of the unlawful seizure, the De fend ant’ s response to Office r 5 Ben al ly was not

ana tur al or

pr ed ic ta ble pr ogr es sio n f

ro m the unl aw fu l se iz ur e but 6 rathe r anunp ro m

pte d a ct of his ow n f

re e w ill
. 7 { 38} T he thi rd co nsi de ratio n re qui re s that w e as se ss the pur pose a nd f la gr an cy of the 8 pol ic e m isc ondu ct . N oth ing in the re co rd ind ic at es tha t Be na lly ini tiate d th e tr af fi c 9 sto p f o r t h e s p e c i f

i c p u r p o s e o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g D e f e n d a n t o r f

o r s o m e o t h e r

m er el y 10 pretextual reason. And noth ing indicates Benally approached and a d d ressed 11 D ef en dant f or a rb itr ar y r easo ns or to pr ovok e ad dit ion al w ro ngdo ing ; r athe r, she 12 ad dr esse d D ef

en dant b as ed

on h er obs er va tio n th at

he w as not

w eari ng a

se at be lt. 1 3 Be na l l y h a d p r o b ab l e c au s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t D e f e n d a n t w a s v i o l a t i n g t h e l a w ; a nd 14 unde r co ndi tio ns of a l aw fu l tra ff ic sto p, he r co ur se of

c ondu ct the re af te r w oul d no t 15 ha ve be enunl aw fu l. T his thi rd c onsi de ratio n ti ps the ba lanc e aw ay f ro m sup pr es sio n 16 be ca use nothin g su gge sts that a dm iss ionof the e vid en ce w ill e m

bol de n po lic e to 17 en ga ge in unc onst itu tio na l tra ff ic sto ps. B en al ly ’ s be ha vio r cannot r ea sona bly be 18 viewed as f

lagrant m iscondu ct of a police off icer searching for evidence.23

1 A cc or din gly , the F ourth A m en dm en t ana ly sis doe s not r equir e ex cl udi ng e vid en ce of 2 concealing identit y

because it w as fre e of the taint of the unlawf ul seizure. 3 B. State Const itutional Groun ds 4 { 39} Be ca

use w e co nc lud e tha t the F ou rth A m en dm en t do es not of fe r D ef en dant 5 pr ot ect io n h ere, we m us t ad dr es s h i s ch al le ng e u nd er Art ic le II, Sect io n 1 0. See 6 Gom ez , 19 97 -NMSC -0 06, ¶ 19. U nde r the int er sti tia l a ppr oa chw e ad opt ed

in 7 Gom ez , “ w e m ay

div er ge f ro m f ed er al pr ec ed en t w he re the fe de ra l ana ly sis is fl aw ed , 8 w he re the re ar e str

uc tur al dif

fe re nc es be tw ee n the sta te an d f ed er al gov er

nm en ts, or 9 because of distinctive NewMexico chara cteristics.” G arc ia , 2009 -N MS C- 046, ¶ 27. 10 1. Pr eservation of St ate C onstitut ional Iss ue 11 { 40} Be ca

use the Co ur t of Appe al s f ound the c ri m es of

c onc ea lin g id en tity

a nd 12 fo rg er y sho uld ha ve be ensup pr es se d un de r the F ourth A m en dm en t, it did not a ddr es s 13 De fendant’ s challenge under Article II, Sec tion 1 0. T herefor e, as an initial m atter, 14 w e m ust de te rm ine w he the r D ef en dant p ro pe rl y

pr es er ve d hi s arg um en t un de r the 15 New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Se e Sta te v. Ke te lso n , 2011-NMS C16 023, ¶ 10, 150 N
. M. 137 , 257 P
. 3d 9 57. T he S ta te c once de s th at de fe ndant’ s st at e 17 co nst itu tio na l c la im

w as a de qua te ly

pr es er ve d. N ev er

the le ss, the r

ule of pr es er va tio n 1 8 mu s ts t i l l b e me t . T h e r e qu i r e me n t s f o r p r e s e rv a t i o n o f

s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i ms24

1 w er e enunc ia te d in Gom ez , 1997-NMS C-006, ¶¶ 2 2 -23. W hen, as is the ca se here, 2 a s t at e c on st i t

ut ional provi sion h as previouslybeen interpreted m ore expansively than 3 its f ed er al c ount er

part , tr ia l c ouns e l m

u st d ev el op the ne ce ssary

f ac tua l ba sis a nd r ai se 4 th e ap pl ic ab le co ns ti tu ti on al pro vi si on in tri al co ur t. Id

. ¶ 22. 5 { 41} D ef

en dant e xpl ic itl y

c ite d A rt ic le II, Se ct ion10 i n hi s m oti on t o su ppr es s. 6 H ow ev er , in his m oti on t o su ppr es s, D ef

en dant o nly

dis cu sse d the fa ct s le ad ing up 7 to the tr af

fi c sto p to arg ue the of

fic er la ck ed r ea sona ble sus pic ion
. V er

y f ewf ac ts 8 re gard ing the c ri m es of c onc ea lin g ide nti ty an d fo rg er y w er e de ve lop ed in the m oti on 9 hearing. I t is in the find i n g s o f fact and conclus ions o f lawthat the district court 10 sta te s, “ [I ] t w as dur ing the iss uanc e of the c itatio n th at

the c harg ed

c rime s of 11 concea l i n g i dentityand forgery are alleged to have occurred. ” T he district court 12 co nc lud ed

that an un law fu l st op d oe s no t j ust if y the c om m iss ionof

ne wc ri m es a nd 13 tha t the e vid en ce of

the f or ge ry a nd c onc ea lin g id en tity

w as a dm iss ibl e at

tr ia l. 14 { 42} W e fi nd tha t de spi te thi s m ar gin al re co rd , the ne ce ssary fa ct ua l ba sis w as sti ll 1 5 d ev el o p ed an dt h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ru l i n g wa s fa i rl y i n v o k ed . Th er ef o re , De fe n d an t ’s 16 A rt ic le I I, Sect io n 10 cha lle nge w as a de qua te ly pr es er ve d. W e ne xt d et er

m ine 17 w he the r A rt ic le I I, Sec tio n 10 a ff or ds D ef en dant g re at er

pr ote ct ionthan th e Fo urth 18 A m en dm en t and r equir es sup pr es sio n of the e vid en ce of

the c ri m es of

c onc ea lin g25

1 ide nti ty a nd f or ge ry c om m itt ed a ft er a n un law fu l tra ff

ic sto p. 2 2. A rt ic le II, S ec ti on 10 3 { 43} A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 pr ovi de s th at “ [t ] he pe op le sh al l be s ec ur e in the ir 4 pe r s o n s , pape rs , ho m es an d e ffec ts , fro m un reas on ab le sea rch es an d s ei zu res . . . .” 5 N. M
. Co n st. ar

t. I I, § 10. Sim ilar to the Fourth Am endm ent, this clause em bodi es 6 “ the fu nda m e n t a l n o t i o n t h a te v e ry p e r s o n i n t h i s s t a t e i s e n t i t l e dt o b e f r e e f ro m 7 unwarr anted g o vernm ental intrusio ns.” State v. G utierrez , 199 3- N MS C- 062, ¶ 46, 8 116 N
. M. 431 , 8 63 P.2 d 1052. “ T he ke y inquir y und er A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 is 9 r e a so nableness.” Ke te lso n , 201 1- N MS C- 023, ¶ 20. “ W e av oid

br igh t- lin e, pe r se 10 ru le s i n d et erm in in g re as on ab le ne ss ; i ns te ad , we con si de r th e f a c t s o f eac h c as e.” 11 Sta te v . G ranv ill e , 200 6- N MC A -0 98, ¶ 18, 140 N
. M. 345 , 142 P
. 3d 9 33. 12 { 44} D ef

en dant ar gue s that upho ldi ng the dis tr ic t cour t rul ing w oul d c re at e a br igh t13 lin e, pe r se standard

w he re by the c om m iss ion of non- vio le nt ide nti ty of fe nse s w oul d 14 al w ay s be suf

fi ci en t to purge the ta int

of a n un co nst itu tio na l se iz ur e an d w oul d thus 15 contradict our prefer ence to consider the fac ts of each ca se. De fendant also argues 16 that un l i ke t he f

e de r a l e xc l us i on a ry

r ul e , w hi c h on l y

app l i e s “ w he r e i t s de t e rr e nce 17 benefits outweigh its substantial so cial costs,” P en nsy lv ani a Bd. of P rob. & P arol e 18 v. Sc ott , 524 U
. S. 357 , 363 ( 1998 ) (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ), the26

1 pr im ar y f oc us o f the st at e ex cl usi onary r ule is se curi ng p ri va cy

int er es ts, w hic h is 2 ac hie ve d by

put tin g i nd iv idu al s inthe sa m e posi tio n a s if the m isc ondu ct

ha d no t 3 oc cu rred , se e Sta te v . T rude lle , 200 7- N MC A -0 66, ¶ 40, 142 N
. M. 18, 162 P
. 3d 1 73 4 (“ T he pur

pose of the sta te ex cl usi onary ru le [, to en sur e fr ee dom f ro m unr ea sona

ble 5 se ar cha nd s ei zure , ] is ac co m pli she d by

doi ng n o m or e than r et

ur n th e pa rt ie s to 6 w he re the y

sto od b ef or e the r igh t w as vio la te d. ”)
. F ina lly , D ef en dant arg ue s th at

the 7 thr ee -f ac tor f ed er al a tte nua tio n ana ly sis is fla wed in tha t i t f ai ls t o a cc ount

f or the 8 gr eate r pr ote ct ionof

pr iva cy gr an te d un de r A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10
. 9 { 45} T he S ta te a rg ue s tha t the Co urt of Appe al s pr ope rl y

appl ie d th e fe de ra l ana ly sis 10 but ne gle ct ed

to ba lanc e the co sts an d be ne fi ts of ex cl usi on an d tha t as ar es ult , the 11 Court of Appeals dre w a categorical distin ction between violent and no n-violent n ew 12 cr im es w hic h w ill le ad to a sy ste m at ic under -v al ua tio n of the soc ie ta l c ost s of 13 ex clud in g ev ide nc e of c ri m es suc h a s f

or ge ry or giv ing af

al se ide nti ty . T he S ta te 14 sugg es ts tha t this Co urt a dopt a n a ppr opr ia te ba lanc ing te st f or e va lua tin g a tte nua tio n 15 unde r the state Co nst itu tio n. 16 { 46} While we have repeat ed l y expressed that Article II, Sec tion 1 0 provid es 17 broader protection of individu al privacy than the Fourth Am endm ent, the key inqui ry 18 is s til l on e of

r ea sona blen es s, which “ de pe nds on the ba lanc e be tw ee n th e publ ic27

1 interest and the indiv idual’s interest in freedom from police intrusio n upo n personal 2 liberty .” Ke te lso n , 201 1- N MS C- 023, ¶ 20. A rt ic le II , Se ct ion 10 is “ a fo undatio n of 3 both pe rs ona l pr iva cy

a nd the int eg ri ty of

the c ri m ina l j ust ic e sy ste m , a s w el l a s th e 4 ultim ate re gulator of poli ce conduct.” Sta te v . G arc ia , 200 9- N MS C- 046, ¶ 31 5 (e m pha sis a dde d)
. “ T o eva lua te w he the r a searc h and sei zure vio la te s th e pr ote ct ion s 6 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n, c ourts j udge ‘ the f ac ts o f ea chc as e by

ba lanc ing the 7 de gr ee of intru sio n into an indi vid ua l’ s pri va cy

a ga ins t the int er es t of

the gov er nm en t 8 in prom oting crim e prevention and detection.’ ” Sta te v . D av is , 20 15 -NMSC -0 34 , ¶ 9 100, 360 P
. 3d 1 161 (

Davis II ) (C há ve z, J. , spe ci al ly

c onc ur ri ng) ( quot ing State v. 10 Jason L. , 2000-NMS C-018, ¶ 14, 129 N. M. 119, 2 P .3d 856). 11 { 47} Appl ic at ionof

the thr ee -p ar

t f ed er al a tte nua tio n ana ly sis c om ports w ithour 12 pr ef er en ce to as se ss the r ea sona ble ne ss o f lawe nf

or ce m en t by

c onsi de ri ng t

h e t o t a lity 13 of th e ci rcu m st a n c e s o f e a c h c as e. See State v. Leyv a , 201 1- N MS C- 009, ¶ 55, 149 14 N
. M. 435 , 250 P
. 3d 8 61. D ef en dant’ s a sse rt ionthat the f ed er al a tte nua tio n ana ly sis 15 is flaw ed because it fa ils to account for the height ened protections of privacy under 16 A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 is unpe rsuasiv e. T he f ed er al a tte nua tio n ana ly sis ha s a lr ea dy 17 be en ap pli ed to A rt ic le II , Se ct ion 10 in ins tanc es inv olv ing co nf es sio ns o r co nse nt 18 to se ar ch
. I n Sta te v . M ont el eo ne , 200 5- N MC A -1 29, ¶ ¶ 17, 21, 138 N
. M. 544 , 12328

1 P. 3d 7 77, the Co urt of

Appe al s a

ppl ie d the thr ee -p ar

t f ed er al a na ly sis to de te rm ine 2 whether the defendant’ s consent to search his apar tm ent wa s sufficiently

attenuated 3 from the taint of the officer s’ illegal entry . 2005 -N MCA -129, ¶¶ 18-19. T he Court 4 co nc lud ed

that the de fe ndant’ s c onse nt w as not suf fi ci en tl y atte nua te d f

ro m the 5 of fi ce rs ’ il le ga l e ntr

y an d th eref

or e supp re sse d th e sta te ’ s e vid en ce und er both th e 6 Fo ur th Am e n d men t an d Art ic le II, Sect io n 1 0. Id

. ¶ ¶ 21- 22. T houg h M

ont el eo ne 7 de al t w ith a def

en dant’ s cons en t to searc h, the appl ic at ionof the a tte nua tio n ana ly sis 8 pr ote ct ed

Mo nte le one ’ s st at e co nst itu tio na l r igh ts, a nd we do n ot s ee w hy it s 9 ap pli catio n inthat c as e or in thi s ca se is f

law ed
. I n a ddi tio n, the gr eate r pr ote ct ion s 10 af fo rd ed ve hic le pa sse nge rs in N ewMe xic o a re no t th ro ugh anappl ic at ionof the 11 fed eral att en ua ti on fact or s t o t hi s ca se . Se e, e . g. , Sta te v. P ort ill o , 201 1- N MC A -0 79, 12 ¶ 22- 23, 150 N
. M. 187 , 258 P
. 3d 4 66 ( hol din g A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 , unl ike F ourth 13 A m en dm en t, a llo w s of fi ce r to o nly

a sk p as se nge r que sti ons re la te d to the r ea son fo r 14 the stop o r otherw ise supp orted by rea sonable su spicion ). 15 { 48} While Off

icer B enally ’ s decision to initiate the stop wa s m istaken, her c ondu ct 1 6 t h er ea ft erwa s l aw fu l . Of fi ce r B en al l y re as o n ab l y re qu es t ed De fe n d an t ’s 17 ide nti fi catio n a ft er

obs er vin g th e se at be lt viol at ion
. W e the re fo re co nc lud e tha t the 18 be ne fi ts o f de te rr en ce in thi s c as e ar e not out weig he d by the c ost

of e xc lud ing the29

1 ev ide nc e of

D ef en dant’ s c ri m es . T houg h a pa sse nge r in an auto m obi le ha s ar igh t t o 2 be f re e of unr ea sona

ble se iz ur e by the gove rn m en t, the pa sse nge r’ s unpr ovok ed a nd 3 w ill fu l cri m ina l a ct s a ft er a n un re as ona

ble tr af fi c sto p c an not

be sanc tio ne d. T he 4 vio la tio n of D ef

en dant’ s Fo urth A m en dm en t or A rt ic le II , S ec tio n 10 r igh ts d oe s no t 5 confer upon him

a license to com

m it new c rim es, whether they be phy sical resistance 6 or m or e pa ss iv e fo rm s of res is ta nc e to go ve rn m en t au th or it y . Se e W aupe ke nay , 973 7 F. 2d a t 1537. A cc or din gly , w e con cl ude tha t the im portant p ri nc ipl e of

de te rr en ce of 8 pol ic e m isc ondu ct

doe s not we ak enthe e xc lus ion ar y r ule und er A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 10 , 9 an d a ll ev ide nc e obt ai ne d by fl ag rant or de lib er at e m isc ondu ct sha ll be sup pr es se d. 10 Bu t w er e w e to drawali ne ba se d m er el y upo n th e na tur e of the vio la tio n, it w oul d 11 em bol de n in div idu al s to e nga ge in non- vio le nt y et sti ll cr im ina l ac ts tha t c om pr om ise 12 the integrity

of th e crim inal j ustice sy stem . De fendant’ s im personation of his brother 13 and forging hi s brother’ s signatu re on a traff ic citation could h ave caused his brother 14 re al harm ha d it not

be endis co ve re d. F or ge ry w as athi rd -d eg re e fe lon y unt il the 15 sta tut e w as a m en de d in200 6 to m ak e it a fo urth- de gr ee f el on y whe n th er e is n o 16 qu an ti fia bl e d am ag e o r th e d am ag e is $2 ,50 0 o r le ss . See § 30 -1 6- 10( B)
. T he 200 6 17 am endm ent also m ade forger y a second-degree felony

when the d amag e is over 18 $2 0,0 00
. See § 30-16-10 (E ). T he fac t that the Legislature c hose to keep all forgeries30

1 as f el ony of fe nse s and i nc re as ed

the pun ish m en t f

or ser io us fo rg er

y c as es sho w s it 2 c o n s i d e r s t h i s c r i me h a rmfu l t o s o c i e t y. 3 { 49} Fi na lly , D ef

en dant doe s not pre se nt any ba sis f or us t o c onc lud e tha t this c as e 4 invo lves structural differe nces betwe en the federa l and state g overnm ents other than 5 the differe nces alrea dy articulated betw een the Fourth Am endm en t an d Article II, 6 Se ct ion 1 0
. H o w e v e r , o u r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e n e w c r i m e s s u f f i c i e n t l y p u r g e d t h e ta int 7 of the prim ary

illegality rem oved tho se crim es from the greater protection that New 8 Me x i c o l aw

p r o v i d e s f

r o m unr e a s o n a

b l e s e ar c h es a nd s ei zure s in vol vin g auto m obi le s. 9 IV. CON CLU SION 10 { 50} W e hol d th at

the ne wc ri m e ex ce pti on t o th e ex cl usi onary r ule m ay ap pl yto 11 both vi ole nt and n on- vio le nt c ri m es c om m itt ed in re spon se to unl aw fu l po lic e ac tio n. 12 D ef en dant’ s atte m

pts to co nc ea l hi s id en tity

a ft er the unl aw fu l tra ff

ic sto p su ff

ic ie ntl y 13 pur ge d th e ta int of th e ini tia l i lle ga lity so a s to r en de r the e xc lus ion ar y r ule 14 inappli cable under both the Fourth Am endm ent and Article II, Sec tion 1 0 of the Ne w 15 Mexico Constitu tion. The evidence of th e seat belt violation o btained as a direct 16 re sul t of

the unl aw fu l st op w as c or re ct ly sup pr es se d. A cc or din gly , we re ve rs e the 17 Co urt of

Appe al s and r ei nst at e D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion
. 18 { 51} IT IS S O ORDERE D.31

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 2 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice 3 WE CO NCUR:

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 7 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice