Opinion ID: 2630333
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Warrantless Arrest Was Justified by Exigent Circumstances

Text: {13} All warrantless arrests must comply with Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, which states in relevant part that `[t]he people shall be secure . . . from unreasonable searches and seizures. . . .' Campos v. State, 117 N.M. 155, 157, 870 P.2d 117, 119 (1994) (quoting N.M. Const. art. II, § 10) (alterations in original). This Court has previously stated that in all cases the ultimate question is whether the search and seizure was reasonable. State v. Martinez, 94 N.M. 436, 440, 612 P.2d 228, 232 (1980). [F]or a warrantless arrest to be reasonable the arresting officer must show that the officer had probable cause to believe that the person arrested had committed or was about to commit a felony and some exigency existed that precluded the officer from securing a warrant. Campos, 117 N.M. at 159, 870 P.2d at 121. `Probable cause requires that the officer believe, and have good reason to believe, that the person he arrests has committed [or is committing] a felony.' Id. at 157, 870 P.2d at 158 (quoted authority omitted). Exigent circumstances means an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence. Id. at 158, 870 P.2d at 120 (quoted authority omitted). This requires a determination whether on the basis of the facts known to a prudent, cautious, trained officer, the officer could reasonably conclude that swift action was necessary. State v. Valdez, 111 N.M. 438, 441, 806 P.2d 578, 581 (Ct.App.1990) (quoted authority omitted). {14} We first consider whether the district court was correct in ruling that the police had probable cause to arrest Defendant. By the time the police finally located Defendant the day after both he and Rustvold were last seen together at Montezuma Elementary School, the evidence pointed overwhelmingly to his having assaulted her and removed her from the school premises in his own car. When the officers encountered Defendant, they did not know where she was, and they could not be sure whether she was dead or alive. It was clear, however, that Defendant had already removed her from the school, that he had been eluding detection and that he had been aggressively destroying and concealing evidence of his crimes. The district court's extensive findings of fact from the suppression hearing detailed many of the sound reasons why the officers were justified in believing that swift action was necessary to prevent Defendant's escape, to keep further evidence from being destroyed and to pursue any remaining possibility of saving Rustvold's life. {15} The fact that the police took two hours after Defendant's arrest to obtain search warrants for Defendant's car and home is relied on by Defendant as proof that exigent circumstances did not exist for his arrest. The police also might have risked waiting to get an arrest warrant before apprehending Defendant, but [t]he fact that a different course of action also would have been reasonable does not mean that [an officer's] conduct was unreasonable. State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 43, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1. The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement necessarily provides a range of reasonable discretion to an officer on the scene. If an objectively reasonable, well-trained officer could have determined that swift action was called for to prevent destruction of evidence, the escape of a suspect or undue risk to life or property, the exigent circumstances exception will protect the officer's exercise of discretion. State v. Rowell, 2008-NMSC-041, ¶ 30, 144 N.M. 371, 188 P.3d 95 (emphasis added). We therefore uphold the district court's reasoned determination that the warrantless arrest of Defendant was lawfully supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances.