Opinion ID: 2587524
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the right is protected by the federal constitution

Text: {7} If the federal Constitution affords Defendant the protection he seeks, we will not examine his state constitutional claim. See Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 19, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1. Here, Defendant seeks protection from the extension of his detention at a border checkpoint stop when the officer conducting the detention allegedly lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In Cardenas-Alvarez, the two-judge majority recognized that unlike New Mexico courts, which demand reasonable suspicion to extend a detention beyond routine questions, the Tenth Circuit requires mere suspicious circumstances. 2000-NMCA-009, ¶ 14, 128 N.M. 570, 995 P.2d 492 (comparing State v. Galloway, 116 N.M. 8, 9, 859 P.2d 476, 477 (Ct.App.1993) with United States v. Chavira, 9 F.3d 888, 889 (10th Cir.1993)). The Court of Appeals held Defendant's extended detention unconstitutional because the facts known to the Border Patrol agents [do not meet] what we have assumed to be the lower Tenth Circuit standard of suspicious circumstances. Cardenas-Alvarez, 2000-NMCA-009, ¶ 18, 128 N.M. 570, 995 P.2d 492. The State argues that this holding rests on a misunderstanding of federal border search law. We agree. Under federal law, Defendant's detention constituted a routine border checkpoint stop and therefore need not have been supported by suspicious circumstances. {8} Federal courts have rendered the referral of a motorist from primary to secondary legally immaterial; a Border Patrol agent need not observe suspicious circumstances to make such a referral so long as the detention is permissible in scope and duration. See United States v. Ludlow, 992 F.2d 260, 263-64 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that Border Patrol agents have virtually unlimited discretion to selectively refer cars to the secondary inspection area. Thus a routine checkpoint inquiry may properly take place at a primary inspection area, a secondary inspection area, or both as long as the scope of the inquiry is appropriate.); United States v. Sanders, 937 F.2d 1495, 1499-1500 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that suspicious circumstances are not required to justify the referral of an individual to a secondary inspection station); see also United States v. Pinedo-Montoya, 966 F.2d 591, 593-94 (10th Cir.1992) (holding that reasonable suspicion is required to detain a motorist and to conduct more than a routine stop, but referral of the accused to secondary detention was routine and constitutionally insignificant). {9} Under federal law, Defendant's detention was not excessive in scope or duration. Defendant does not allege, nor does the record suggest, that he was detained for an impermissibly long period of time. With regard to the scope of the detention, federal courts have held that a routine stop may include more than questions regarding citizenship and immigration. [A] few brief questions concerning such things as vehicle ownership, cargo, destination and travel plans may be appropriate [at a routine checkpoint stop] if reasonably related to the agent's duty to prevent the unauthorized entry of individuals into this country and to prevent the smuggling of contraband. U.S. v. Rascon-Ortiz, 994 F.2d 749, 752 (10th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Massie, 65 F.3d 843, 848 (10th Cir.1995) (same); United States v. Chavira, 9 F.3d 888, 889 (10th Cir.1993) (same). [1] As demonstrated above, such a routine stop may be conducted at primary or secondary inspection areas without suspicious circumstances. Here, because Agent Arredondo's questions concerned Defendant's travel plans and were reasonably related to his duty to prevent the smuggling of contraband (in this case narcotics) they fell within the routine scope of inquiry allowed under the federal Constitution. {10} Because federal law does not protect the right asserted by Defendant, Defendant's consent to submit to a search of his vehicle was not tainted, under federal law, by any unlawful police conduct. Nor do we find merit in Defendant's suggestion that his consent was involuntary under federal law, or that the dismantling of the vehicle exceeded the scope of his consent. Under federal law the dismantling of a vehicle is generally found to be reasonable and within the parameters of a general consent. See United States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509, 1514-15 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that a search that included removing a panel from the car door was within the scope of the defendant's consent to look in his car). The agents in the present case did not dismantle the vehicle until after they substantiated the presence of narcotics within the body of the vehicle by carrying out a canine search to which Defendant had also consented. See United States v. Santurio, 29 F.3d 550, 553 (10th Cir.1994) (holding that the removal of screws that fastened a strip of carpet covering a metal compartment containing cocaine did not exceed the scope of the defendant's consent to search, especially since the officer did not enter the compartment until the drug detection dog alerted to the presence of narcotics.). Under federal law, the dismantling of Defendant's vehicle in order to access the inner compartment of the gas tank did not exceed the scope of Defendant's consent. Because the protections sought by Defendant are not cognizable under the federal Constitution, we now examine Defendant's state constitutional claim.