Opinion ID: 891566
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant fairly invoked a ruling on the issue of his detention

Text: {8} The State asserts that Defendant argued only to the district court that Blake was without authority to arrest him, a question separate and distinct from a determination of whether Blake was authorized to detain him. It contends that the district court's order embodied only two rulings: (1) that Blake did not arrest Defendant; and (2) that Defendant's detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. According to the State, the absence of the district court's express ruling on Blake's authority to detain Defendant demonstrates Defendant's failure to adequately preserve that argument for consideration below. {9} Defendant's argument in the district court was that Blake's actions, however characterized, were unreasonable within the context of the Fourth Amendment. He specifically argued that either the arrest or detention of Defendant was illegal, and therefore all evidence obtained after his seizure should be suppressed. In addition to his broad argument that his detention was unreasonable, Defendant also specifically argued that [t]he arrest and detention of Defendant [were] without proper police authority.  {10} While Defendant's argument could have been clearer, we believe that it was sufficient to invoke a ruling from the district court on the issue of Blake's authority to detain him. See Rule 12-216(A) NMRA (To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked[.]). Defendant focused the district court's attention on the fact that Blake was not a commissioned police officer, and therefore lacked authority to detain or arrest him, making his seizure unreasonable within the context of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the district court denied Defendant's Motion to Suppress based upon an alleged unlawful arrest and detention by police officers[.] Therefore, we conclude that Defendant did preserve the issue of whether Blake had the authority to detain him and, if not, whether exceeding that authority violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable seizure.