Opinion ID: 2623375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Legality of the First Stop

Text: {40} In New Mexico, a license plate must be securely fastened in a place and position so as to be clearly visible. NMSA 1978, § 66-3-18(A) (1998). Deputy House stopped Vandenberg and Swanson under the mistaken belief that the vehicle was being driven without a license plate. Defendants argue that it was improper for Deputy House to ask for Swanson's driver's license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration once he realized that the 1975 Monte Carlo did have a license plate. Defendants characterize Deputy House's request as unreasonable, because modest effort would have shown his perception to have been mistaken. This argument ignores New Mexico precedent. {41} The case at hand is very similar to Haywood, in which the officer stopped the suspect's vehicle because he believed that the car was being driven without a license plate or temporary tag. 1998-NMCA-029, ¶ 3. Once the vehicle was stopped and the police officer was two or three feet from the rear of the vehicle, he realized that the car had a temporary tag. Id. The temporary tag was difficult to see because the windows were so darkly tinted. Id. ¶ 12. In determining whether it was reasonable for the officer to ask for identification and proof of insurance, even after he realized that the vehicle had a temporary tag, the Court of Appeals relied upon the reasoning of our opinion in State v. Reynolds, 119 N.M. 383, 388, 890 P.2d 1315, 1320 (1995): In Reynolds, [the Supreme Court] held that generally, whenever a driver is validly stopped for whatever reason, it is reasonable for the officer to ask for identification (driver's license) and proof of insurance. Haywood, 1998-NMCA-029, ¶ 13 (citing Reynolds, 119 N.M. at 388, 890 P.2d at 1320). The court in Haywood relied upon the reasoning of Reynolds to hold that the de minimis detention of [the defendant] ... was not unreasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Haywood, 1998-NMCA-029, ¶ 13. {42} In the present case, no photos or other kinds of demonstrative evidence were placed in evidence at trial to refute Deputy House's testimony that the license plate was not clearly visible. Therefore, despite Defendants' remonstrations, we must defer to the district court and its conclusion that Deputy House spoke truthfully about his reason for stopping Defendants. Even though Deputy House was mistaken, the reasoning of Haywood and Reynolds leads us to conclude that Deputy House made a lawful stop, during which he could detain Defendants briefly to check the driver's documentation. Defendants' Refusal of the Canine Sniff and Observations of Their Behavior {43} After Deputy House ran the license inquiry, he told Defendants they were free to go. At that moment, Deputy Hill arrived on the scene, and Deputy House requested Swanson's consent for a canine sniff of the exterior of the car. Defendants asked if they had to comply with the canine sniff, and Deputy House told them they did not. Swanson refused, and Deputy House allowed them to continue on their way. Deputy House then sent a BOLO and communicated directly with Officer Roberts about what he had observed of Defendants' behavior, including their perceived nervousness while refusing the canine sniff. Deputy House testified: I gave [Officer Roberts] a description of the vehicle. I told him about the nervousness, and I did advise him that [Defendants] did deny consent for me to have Officer Hill walk a dog around. {44} We must consider whether any of this information was passed along to Officer Roberts unlawfully, or whether Officer Roberts' reliance on the BOLO information contaminates the weapons frisk that followed. [3] More than one question comes into play. The first is whether any provision under the Constitution or laws precludes Deputy House from observing Defendants' behavior while he requested their permission for the canine sniff and while Defendants lawfully refused him. Then, having noted Defendants' nervousness and refusal to make eye contact, is there any constitutional or other legal reason why Deputy House may not pass his observations on to Officer Roberts? Notably, Deputy House articulated only his observations and impressions; he thought Defendants were acting suspiciously. He did not pass judgment on whether Defendants possessed drugs or were likely guilty of some other crime. Deputy House had no reasonable suspicion to detain Defendants any longer and did not do so. He did not ask Officer Roberts to detain Defendants, knowing that he could no longer do so. He merely shared his impressions with another law enforcement official. {45} The law does not require Deputy House to turn a blind eye to safety considerations that may later come into play and endanger another officer. What an officer legally observes, he may take note of, and what he notes, he may pass along to his fellow officers. Defendants' lawful exercise of his right to refuse a canine sniff [4] did not preclude Deputy House from sharing the relevant information gleaned in the course of that exchange. United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151, 1158 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that although there may be some cases where the form of a suspect's assertion of rights may support a finding of probable cause, officers and magistrates cannot rely solely on the form in which a suspect asserts constitutional rights to establish probable cause ); United States v. Carter, 985 F.2d 1095, 1097 (D.C.Cir.1993) (stating that [t]he detective could reasonably take [the defendant's peculiar] conduct into account, as part of the totality of the circumstances, regardless whether it occurred before, or, as here, after [the defendant] had given and then withdrawn his consent to a search); United States v. Wilson, 953 F.2d 116, 126 (4th Cir.1991) (noting that the court was not prepared ... to rule that the form of a denial can never be included as a factor to be considered in determining whether an investigative stop was justified); United States v. Riley, 927 F.2d 1045, 1050 (8th Cir.1991) (concluding that when determining whether officers at an airport in Little Rock had reasonable suspicion, it was proper for the officers to consider, within the totality of the circumstances, that the defendant became nervous and guarded when detectives at an airport in Los Angeles pressed for permission to search the defendant's luggage and permission was denied); People v. Haley, 41 P.3d 666, 676 (Colo.2001) (stating that the defendant's conduct in reluctantly agreeing to a search of the luggage and refusing to consent to a search of the car is not a circumstance supporting reasonable suspicion); cf. Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 495-96 (3d Cir.1995) (concluding that the defendant's right to refuse consent cannot be considered to determine reasonable suspicion, even if the defendant became argumentative and difficult). {46} The harder question is whether Deputy House's inclusion of a neutral fact in the BOLOthe refusal of the canine sniffnecessarily contaminated Officer Roberts' later opinion that his safety was in danger. Keeping in mind that for purposes of this opinion we draw no distinction between a refusal of a search and a refusal of a canine sniff, we think it self-evident that Defendants' refusal is not a probative fact of guilt, suspicion, or dangerousness. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) ([A] refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) ([A person] may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds.). Defendants' refusal should not be considered in determining whether Officer Roberts had reasonable and articulable suspicion that Defendants were armed and dangerous. See Garcia v. State, 103 N.M. 713, 714, 712 P.2d 1375, 1376 (1986) (concluding that the defendant's refusal to consent could not be used as evidence of guilt at trial because `[i]f the government could use such a refusal against the citizen, an unfair and impermissible burden would be placed upon the assertion of a constitutional right' (quoting United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1351 (9th Cir.1978))); State v. Zelinske, 108 N.M. 784, 788, 779 P.2d 971, 975 (Ct.App.1989) (We hold that, under these circumstances, defendant's withdrawal of consent, either by itself or when added to the other circumstances known to the officers, did not provide probable cause.), [5] overruled on other grounds by State v. Bedolla, 111 N.M. 448, 455, 806 P.2d 588, 595 (Ct.App. 1991); United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 946 (10th Cir.1997) (The failure to consent to a search cannot form any part of the basis for reasonable suspicion.). See generally Kenneth J. Melilli, The Consequences of Refusing Consent to a Search or Seizure: The Unfortunate Constitutionalization of an Evidentiary Issue, 75 S. Cal. L.Rev. 901, 937 (2002) (arguing that evidence of refusal to consent is usually inadmissible, not necessarily because it punishes one for assertion of a constitutional right, but because refusal to consent is not probative of guilt or suspicion and is therefore irrelevant). {47} When Defendants refused the canine sniff, their conduct was a neutral act which neither incriminated nor exculpated them. Therefore, in determining whether Officer Roberts had reasonable suspicion to believe that Defendants were dangerous, we do not consider Defendants' refusal to consent as a relevant fact. Cf. Racheal Karen Laser, Comment, Unreasonable Suspicion: Relying on Refusals to Support Terry Stops, 62 U. Chi. L.Rev. 1161, 1161 (1995). {48} We look to the remaining facts in the BOLO to determine whether Officer Roberts was reasonable in his belief that Defendants were dangerous. See Snow v. State, 84 Md.App. 243, 578 A.2d 816, 824 (Ct.Spec.App.1990) (holding that the court could not consider the defendant's refusal to consent, but could continue its analysis by determining whether the remaining facts collectively met the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard). In formulating a reasonable suspicion that Defendants might be armed and dangerous, Officer Roberts did not rely solely on the neutral fact that Defendants refused consent. Nothing in Officer Roberts' testimony indicates that he feared for his safety because Defendants refused the canine sniff or that he drew any negative inferences from that specific fact. Cf. id. (stating the officer indicated that the fact that [the defendant] failed to consent to the required search cinched his decision to conduct the search). {49} Instead, Officer Roberts relied upon his own observations coupled with the inferences he drew from the BOLO, and the BOLO contained information regarding Defendants' demeanor, corroborated by Officer Roberts' own observations, in addition to the refusal to consent. When we have already determined that Officer Roberts had sufficient, objective reasons to be concerned for his safety, it would be unreasonable for us to suppress the fruits of those suspicions, solely because the information available to the officer included one, irrelevant fact. The weight of the case law does not require it, and neither does a healthy sense of proportionality. {50} Our opinion would be very different if Defendants had established that the officers' claims were pretextual, fabricated as a means of retaliating against them for the exercise of their constitutional rights. However, there was sufficient evidence in this record for the district court to conclude that the officers were not so motivated. Assuming Officer Roberts acted in good faith, we hold that his actions were reasonable under the circumstances of this case.