Opinion ID: 891572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: preservation and the interstitial approach

Text: {10} The State argues that Defendant did not preserve his state constitutional argument in accordance with Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶¶ 22-23, and that it is therefore not properly before this Court. We conclude that we may properly address it. {11} A close examination of the record reveals that whether Defendant was seized in the first instance was not a contentious issue before the district court. Rather, it appears that it was tacitly agreed that Defendant was seized at some point during his encounter with the officer. For example, the State's response to Defendant's motion to suppress did not argue that Defendant had not been seized, but rather spoke in terms of reasonable suspicion: An officer's reasonable belief that a suspect is armed and dangerous may follow from a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed, is committing, or will commit an `inherently dangerous crime.' A domestic violence case is an inherently dangerous crime.... Consequently, the actions of [the officer] in this case were completely appropriate and led to admissible evidence against [Defendant]. Similarly, the argument at the hearing concerned not whether there was a seizure, but whether reasonable suspicion existed to seize Defendant. To that end, defense counsel stated, The issue here, Judge, is whether the officer had an articulable suspicion that the person he saw walking across the street at 7 p.m. was committing any crime. {12} It was not until the case reached the Court of Appeals that the issue of whether there had been a seizure became contentious. See Garcia, 2008-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 23-28. The State proposed in its briefing to the Court of Appeals that the district court be affirmed on the alternative grounds that Defendant was never seized. Defendant's state constitutional claim was a response to the State's argument for affirmance on what amounted to right-for-any-reason grounds. See State v. Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 12, 140 N.M. 345, 142 P.3d 933 ([W]e affirm if the trial court decision was right for any reason....). Given such a posture, we will not impose any preservation requirement on Defendant's response. In this context, it was not incumbent on Defendant to anticipate such a holding by the Court of Appeals and preserve his argument when it was not at issue before the district court. We will review his state constitutional claim. {13} However, before we can reach that claim, our interstitial approach to state constitutional interpretation mandates that we consider whether Defendant was protected under the federal constitution. In Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19, we held that [u]nder the interstitial approach, the court asks first whether the right being asserted is protected under the federal constitution. If it is, then the state constitutional claim is not reached. If it is not, then the state constitution is examined.