State v. Bell
2015 NMCA 028
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was stopped for speeding (60 mph in 50 mph zone) on Tramway Blvd; crossing white line and continuing at speed led Deputy Allen to stop him.
- Deputy Allen conducted HGN testing though seated in the car, and asked questions about weapons and “dead bodies” to gauge truthfulness.
- Questions about grenades, rocket launchers, and dead bodies were admitted at trial and formed the basis of the metropolitan court’s ruling.
- Defense moved to suppress the evidence based on lack of reasonable suspicion to extend the stop; metropolitan court denied suppression and admitted relevant testimony.
- Defendant appealed to district court arguing Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 protections; district court found preservation and reversible error in light of Leyva.
- State appealed arguing lack of preservation; district court’s suppression ruling reversed the conviction and district court order was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of Article II, Section 10 claim | State contends Defendant failed to preserve state-constitutional grounds | Leyva allows broader preservation for Article II, Section 10 | Preserved; Leyva applicable |
| Whether questions about weapons and dead bodies expanded the stop | Questions were investigatory technique to assess truthfulness | Questions were unrelated to stop scope and not supported by reasonable suspicion | Questions impermissibly expanded the stop under Article II, Section 10 |
| Whether suppression was required for post-stop evidence | Evidence obtained after permissible stop was admissible | Evidence tainted by unlawful detention must be suppressed | Reversal of metropolitan court; suppression required |
| Impact on standard of review for state constitutional claims | State argues standard of review consistent with Fourth Amendment | State constitutional standard stricter; Leyva governs | Leyva governs; independent state-constitutional review applied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 805 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 1973) (preservation requires specific grounds to alert trial court to error)
- City of Portales v. Shiplett, 67 P.2d 126 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 1960) (preservation must alert the trial court to errors on appeal)
- Gomez, 122 N.M. 777 (N.M. S. Ct. 1997) (established broad state constitutional protection; Gomez noted public interest in preservation)
- Leyva, 149 N.M. 435 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 2011) (less stringent preservation; Article II, Section 10 protections are expansive)
- Duran, 138 N.M. 414 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 2005) (all questions must be related to initial stop or reasonably suspected)
- Portillo, 150 N.M. 187 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (unlawful detention taints evidence; suppression required)