State v. Alderete
255 P.3d 377
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Detectives surveilled a suspected Albuquerque stash house based on a confidential informant tip predicting marijuana delivery during the week of March 12, 2007.
- Three large boxes were delivered to the house on March 16; informant thereafter stated a large quantity of marijuana was being stored there.
- Detectives obtained a search warrant for the Grand Avenue house after corroborating the informant’s information.
- Defendant’s husband left the house with a box containing marijuana, and was stopped for a traffic violation; 49 bundles of marijuana were found in that box.
- Minutes later, Defendant drove away in a white Ford Expedition; she was stopped for unsafe lane changes, an inventory search followed, and two large boxes containing marijuana were found in her vehicle.
- The district court suppressed the evidence, ruling the Westbrook stop was pretextual; the State appealed arguing independent reasonable suspicion justified the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion independent of the pretext claim. | State argues the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion related to drug activity at the stash house. | Alderete contends the stop was pretextual and not supported by individualized suspicion. | Yes; the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on surveillance, informant tip, and corroboration. |
| Whether a pretextual-stop doctrine applies under the New Mexico Constitution given the underlying motive. | State argues the pretext issue is controlled by Ochoa and depends on independent suspicion. | Alderete argues the stop was pretextual and should be suppressed. | Pretextual analysis did not control; evidence suppressed only if underlying motive lacked reasonable suspicion, which it did not. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neal, 142 P.3d 57 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2007) (two-step review of suppression; defer to district court on facts, de novo on reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Ochoa, 206 P.3d 143 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2009) (pretextual stops; burden-shifting approach for unrelated motive)
- Flores v. State, 920 P.2d 1038 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1996) (informant tip with predictive details supports reasonable suspicion)
- State v. De Jesus-Santibanez, 893 P.2d 474 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1995) (informant reliability and corroboration can support stop)