Opinion ID: 891572
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: defendant was seized under article ii, section 10 of the new mexico constitution

Text: {36} Having clarified that a seizure occurs under Article II, Section 10 with reference only to Mendenhall's reasonable person standard, we now apply that standard to the case at bar to determine whether and at what point Defendant was placed in such a position. {37} [A] person has been `seized' ... only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870 (footnote omitted); accord State v. Affsprung, 2004-NMCA-038, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 306, 87 P.3d 1088. The reasonable person would not feel free to leave when his or her freedom of movement is restrained, Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, or when the facts show accosting and restraint, State v. Lopez, 109 N.M. 169, 170, 783 P.2d 479, 480 (Ct.App.1989), modified on other grounds by Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 19, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868). Conversely, [a]s long as the person to whom [the officer's] questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, no seizure has occurred. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870. {38} An otherwise consensual encounter becomes a seizure under the reasonable person standard when an officer engag[es] in conduct significantly beyond that accepted in social intercourse. 4 LaFave, supra, § 9.4(a), at 425 (footnote omitted). The critical factor is whether the policeman, even if making inquiries a private citizen would not, has otherwise conducted himself in a manner which would be perceived as a nonoffensive contact if it occurred between two ordinary citizens. Id. at 425-26 (footnotes omitted). {39} Possible indicators of a seizure are: the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. Lopez, 109 N.M. at 170, 783 P.2d at 480 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870). While police are free to engage people consensually to gather information, when they convey a message that compliance with their requests is required[,] the reasonable person would not feel free to leave and a seizure has occurred. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 14 (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 435, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)). {40} To determine whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave, our courts examine (1) the conduct of the police, (2) the person of the individual citizen, and (3) the physical surroundings of the encounter. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {41} Immediately upon seeing Defendant walking across the street, the officer stopped his marked car in the intersection within close proximity to Defendant and shone his spotlight on him. He then told, ordered, or yelled at Defendant to stop, in a manner clearly indicating that compliance was required. See id. ¶ 14. A reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate the encounter and walk away. To be sure, when Defendant attempted to walk away, the officer pursued him and incrementally escalated the intrusion as Defendant declined to engage. While the officer's conduct grew more and more coercive, even his initial actions demonstrated accosting and restraint. See Lopez, 109 N.M. at 170, 783 P.2d at 480. Defendant was thus seized under Article II, Section 10 when the officer stopped his marked car in the intersection near Defendant, shone his spotlight on him, and told, ordered, or yelled at Defendant to stop. [2]