Court Opinion

ID: 9512705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:21:54.164324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:32.309468
License: Public Domain

BOSSON, Justice (specially concurring). {19} I concur in the remand for the reasons ably set forth in the Court’s Opinion. However, I wish to note that this Court has not yet written on the subject of pretextual stops under our state constitution. State v. Ochoa is a Court of Appeals opinion in which this Court first granted and then quashed certiorari. 2009-NMCA-002, 146 N.M. 32, 206 P.3d 143, cert, granted, 2008-NMCERT-012, 145 N.M. 572, 203 P.3d 103, and cert, quashed, 2009-NMCERT-011,147 N.M. 464, 225 P.3d 794. As one of the dissenting votes in that decision to quash, I continue to believe that Ochoa was wrongly decided and that we should follow the Fourth Amendment analysis set forth in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”), a rare unanimous opinion of that Court. However, at least for now, Ochoa is the law of the land within our state borders, and therefore our duty lies in overseeing its fair application to both the state and the accused, a purpose achieved by remand in this case.