State v. CANDACE S.
274 P.3d 774
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Candace S., a minor, was stopped for erratic driving and odor of alcohol in Sept 2009.
- Officer Kinley conducted field sobriety tests after observing signs of impairment.
- A portable breath test yielded .153; later, at the station, two Intoxilyzer tests yielded .14 and .16.
- Officer Kinley did not warn Candace of the right to remain silent before the blood/ breath testing sequence.
- The district court suppressed Candace's statements but admitted FST results and Intoxilyzer results; Candace appealed suppression ruling.
- This appeal concerns whether FSTs and breath tests were admissible despite claimed rights warnings and voluntariness concerns under the Children's Code and Article II Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSTs require a warrant, exception, or voluntary consent | Candace argues FSTs are searches needing warrant/exception/consent. | Kinley contends FSTs are permissible with independent reasonable suspicion. | FSTs permitted with reasonable suspicion; no warrant/consent needed. |
| Whether a minor must be advised of the right to refuse consent to FSTs | Candace claims 32A-2-14 requires refusal-warning for FSTs. | Javier M. does not require such warning for FSTs. | No warning about withholding consent required for FSTs. |
| Whether failure to warn about the right to remain silent affects admissibility of FSTs | Candace contends lack of silent-right warning renders FSTs involuntary. | FSTs are not statements; warnings apply to statements, not FSTs. | Failure to warn about silence does not render FSTs inadmissible. |
| Admissibility of breath test results where prior warnings were lacking | Candace analogizes to FST warning issue for breath tests. | Breath tests admissible; probable cause existed independent of warnings. | Intoxilyzer results admissible; not tainted by prior events. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leyva, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (2011-NMSC-009) (framework for Article II, Section 10 analysis; Terry-based approach replaced by bright-line standard for stops, but two-part analysis retained for NM Constitution.)
- Javier M., 131 N.M. 1, 33 P.3d 1 (2001-NMSC-030) (limits warnings to right to remain silent; does not require advising consent to FSTs.)
- Randy J., 150 N.M. 683, 265 P.3d 734 (2011-NMCA-105) (child’s FST performance not a testimonial communication; 32A-2-14(D) does not apply to FSTs.)
- State v. Williamson, 129 N.M. 387, 9 P.3d 70 (2000-NMCA-068) (recognizes expansion of investigatory detention may occur with reasonable suspicion.)
- State v. Granillo-Macias, 143 N.M. 455, 176 P.3d 1187 (2008-NMCA-021) (FSTs supported by probable cause and officer observation.)
- State v. Wright, 116 N.M. 832, 867 P.2d 1214 (Ct.App. 1993) (admission considerations regarding FSTs and consent.)
- City of Santa Fe v. Martinez, 148 N.M. 708, 242 P.3d 275 (2010-NMSC-033) (public safety interest in removing drunk drivers weighed against intrusion of FSTs.)