Opinion ID: 6216635
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District court hearing and order

Text: {8} Defendant filed a motion to suppress in the district court, “arguing that volunteer Reserve Deputy Roy Thompson’s detention of [Defendant] was illegal and [therefore] suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of that illegal detention was warranted under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.” In response, the State argued that any unlawful detention which occurred did not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation under Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054. The State further asserted that any unlawful detention was “in furtherance of an important interest” and was “too brief” to have been “an unreasonable seizure under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.” Specifically, the State argued that the “volunteer deputy had acted as any reasonable citizen would when confronted with a person suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, making his conduct constitutionally reasonable” under Article II, Section 10. {9} In addition to testifying about the stop as described above, Thompson testified about his credentials. Thompson stated that “he had been a volunteer reserve deputy with the Torrance County Sheriff’s Department for fifteen to sixteen years” but that 5 he was not a “commissioned, salaried peace officer.” {10} In cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Thompson about two prior cases in which evidence had been suppressed as a result of Thompson’s conduct. In one case, Thompson initiated a traffic stop for careless driving and, on appeal from the magistrate court, the seizure of the defendant was held to be illegal and unreasonable. However, Thompson said he did not remember why the evidence was suppressed. The second case involved Thompson detaining someone at a rest stop, and Thompson remembered that in that case some part of the evidence was suppressed. Following Thompson’s testimony, the State conceded that Thompson lacked statutory authority to detain Defendant. {11} After the parties filed their respective requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court concluded that Thompson arrested Defendant when he ordered her “to stay put” in her truck until Deputy Fulfer arrived and that the arrest was contrary to Section 66-8-124(A) and resulted in an illegal detention because Thompson was not a “‘commissioned, salaried peace officer.’” The district court further concluded that based on the totality of the circumstances, “but for the illegal detention, Defendant would have gone inside her house before [Deputy Fulfer] arrived four to five minutes after the illegal detention,” and whether “Defendant would have opened 6 the door for” Deputy Fulfer, or whether Deputy Fulfer would have attempted to obtain an arrest warrant or enter Defendant’s home without permission, was all speculative. The district court therefore concluded that “Thompson’s illegal detention of Defendant violated Article 2, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution” and that evidence obtained after Deputy Fulfer arrived on the scene should be suppressed. An order suppressing this evidence was then filed. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals.