Court Opinion

ID: 9628780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:31:53.978659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:11.217225
License: Public Domain

WOOD, Chief Judge (dissenting in part and concurring in part). The majority hold that the officer illegally stopped and detained defendants. I disagree. The officer’s testimony is contradictory. As to the initial stop, the officer testified defendants’ car was stopped because the officer figured defendants were hauling marijuana. The officer also testified that he was manning a general roadblock, checking driver’s licenses, ear registrations, checking for stolen cars, anything illegal. The evidence is clear that other vehicles were being stopped and checked. A Marine AWOL had been apprehended and was in the officer’s car when defendants’ car was stopped. As to having defendants pull off the road and wait, again the evidence is in conflict. The officer indicated this was done because defendants looked like dope haulers and the officer “figured” marijuana was being hauled. On the other hand, the officer testified he was suspicious that marijuana was being hauled because the car was a lease car, the way the car was loaded, the nervous way the defendants acted and because the officer thought he smelled marijuana, although he was not sure. As to the opening of the trunk, the evidence is again contradictory. The officer’s testimony that Mikorey consented is not directly contradicted. However, the context of the officer’s testimony would permit the inference that consent was under a threat to get a search warrant. Conflicts in the testimony of the officer were to be resolved by the fact finder. State v. Landlee, 85 N.M. 449, 513 P.2d 186 (Ct.App.1973). Our function, on appellate review, is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision and determine whether the evidence substantially supports the trial court’s decision. State v. Bidegain, 88 N.M. 466, 541 P.2d 971 (1975). Under this standard, the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress should be affirmed. Accordingly, I would affirm the marijuana convictions. I concur in the affirmance of the other convictions. Even under the majority view that the stop and detention was illegal, I agree that the officer was in the lawful discharge of his duties at the time of the assault and battery on him by the defendants. The officer was clearly performing his lawful duties in arresting defendants for possession of contraband which the officer had seen and smelled. State v. Frazier, 88 N.M. 103, 537 P.2d 711 (Ct.App.1975) is not to the contrary.