Court Opinion

ID: 9552129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:05:07.065279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:40.501255
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. The majority holds that the facts and the inferences therefrom permitted the trial court to conclude that the officers, as men of reasonable caution, acted appropriately in making the stop. I cannot so conclude. The behavior and the happenings were not inconsistent with innocent behavior. The happenings were consistent with innocent behavior. The officers may have had a “suspicion” or a “hunch” but they certainly could not conclude, as reasonable men of caution, that the law had been or was being violated. See State v. Galvan, 90 N.M. 129, 560 P.2d 550 (Ct.App. 1977) and cases cited therein. Accordingly, I dissent. The motion to suppress should have been granted.