Opinion ID: 891705
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The defendant's preservation of his Article II, Section 10 argument.

Text: {50} Leyva was required to meet the less stringent of Gomez' preservation requirements because a plethora of precedent already interprets Article II, Section 10 more expansively than the Fourth Amendment. Garcia, 2009-NMSC-046, ¶ 52, 147 N.M. 134, 217 P.3d 1032 (Bosson, J., specially concurring). Leyva met this requirement by pleading that his right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure was violated under both the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 and developing a factual record in his motion and at the suppression hearing. Leyva's Article II, Section 10 argument was preserved.