State v. Almanzar
2012 NMCA 111
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Officers responded to a domestic violence call involving Almanzar and Victim; they located Victim and Almanzar at separate nearby locations within minutes.
- Officer Crafton, during a pat-down for weapons, felt a round object in Almanzar's right pocket and removed it, later identified as cocaine.
- The pat-down was conducted because Almanzar refused to remove his hands from his pockets and the officers suspected he might be armed or dangerous.
- Almanzar was arrested for possession with intent to distribute cocaine; the district court denied the suppression motion and treated the pat-down as within scope.
- The district court concluded the evidence would be inevitably discovered during a search incident to a misdemeanor domestic battery arrest.
- Almanzar appealed the suppression ruling, arguing the pat-down exceeded scope and the arrest was not authorized under the statute without a warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pat-down exceeded scope by removing the object | Almanzar | Almanzar | Pat-down exceeded scope; removal improper |
| Whether inevitable discovery applies given arrest not at scene | State | Almanzar | Inevitable discovery not supported; arrest improper under statute |
| Whether there was a warrantless arrest at the scene under §31-1-7(A) | State | Almanzar | Arrest not authorized without warrant; at-scene requirement not met |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vandenberg, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (NMSC 2003) (pat-down must be limited to weapons; safety rationale)
- State v. Barragan, 131 N.M. 281, 34 P.3d 1157 (NMCA 2001) (factor for when protective search may remove uncertain object)
- State v. Paul T., 128 N.M. 360, 993 P.2d 74 (NMSC 1999) (scope of protective pat-down; may remove object if uncertain weapon)