Opinion ID: 2631109
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the fourth amendment protects defendant, and thus we decline to address his claim under article ii, section 10 of the new mexico constitution

Text: {16} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution make analogous provision for the protection of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. For the past fifteen years, article II, section 10 has been construed to provide broader protections than the Fourth Amendment. State v. Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 14, 140 N.M. 345, 142 P.3d 933 (citing the long line of New Mexico cases construing article II, section 10 more broadly than the Fourth Amendment in a variety of contexts), cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-008, 140 N.M. 423, 143 P.3d 185. Indeed, in State v. Gomez, we reiterated our consistently expressed strong preference for warrants, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 36, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1, and expanded the protection afforded New Mexico motorists from unreasonable searches and seizures by announcing the rule that a warrantless search of an automobile and its contents requires a particularized showing of exigent circumstances, thus rejecting the federal rule. Id. ¶ 39; see also State v. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 15, 130 N.M. 386, 25 P.3d 225. {17} The first issue Defendant raises is whether his claim under article II, section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution was properly preserved. The Court of Appeals held that Defendant failed to preserve it because he d[id] not make any argument, other than in arguing that he preserved the issue, supporting his position that the New Mexico Constitution affords him greater protection than the Federal Constitution. Neal, No. 25,864, memorandum op. at 3. Inasmuch as we hold Officer LaSalle lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the truck following the valid traffic stop, we resolve this case based solely on the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution. See Cardenas-Alvarez, 2001-NMSC-017, ¶ 7, 130 N.M. 386, 25 P.3d 225 (declining to examine defendant's state constitutional claim [i]f the federal Constitution affords [d]efendant the protection he seeks). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to engage in a preservation analysis and proceed to analyze Defendant's claim under the Fourth Amendment alone. See Robbs, 2006-NMCA-061, ¶ 10, 139 N.M. 569, 136 P.3d 570 (deciding that the issue presented was one of reasonable suspicion and thus analyz[ing] the circumstances here only under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, where [d]efendant provide[d] no argument that the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protections for issues involving reasonable suspicion).