State v. Castillo, 35,617

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug trafficking but reserved the right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress; appellate court proposed summary reversal and the State opposed.
At suppression hearing, parties focused on the constitutionality of post-arrest interrogation; the district court sua sponte invoked the inevitable discovery doctrine to admit drugs.
Officers executed a search warrant at the residence; they initially could not locate methamphetamine and called a canine, which alerted in the kitchen area; no drugs were found at that location.
Officers later obtained from Defendant (after contested interrogation) the location of the methamphetamine in the garage area.
The district court concluded the drugs would have been inevitably discovered during the ongoing search; the Court of Appeals found the record insufficient to support that conclusion and reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could invoke the inevitable discovery doctrine sua sponte	The State: facts were fully developed so sua sponte invocation was not unfair	Defendant: unexpected invocation prejudiced defense because parties had focused on interrogation legality	Court: Sua sponte application was inadvisable and could unfairly surprise defense; reversal warranted
Whether discovery was "inevitable" given an ongoing search	The State: ongoing search and indicators (scales; canine alert) made discovery imminent	Defendant: evidence did not show independent inevitability; canine and scales insufficient	Court: Record lacks proof that drugs would have been discovered by independent lawful means
Reliance on canine alert and presence of drug paraphernalia to prove inevitability	The State: canine alert and scales supported inference discovery was certain	Defendant: dogs are fallible; paraphernalia alone does not prove discovery would occur without illegal questioning	Court: Canine alert and scales alone are insufficient; dog unreliability and lack of independent proof undermine inevitability
Weight of officer’s statement that "they were going to find" the drugs	The State: officer’s belief supports inevitability	Defendant: statement was coercive and made to induce disclosure, so has negligible substantive value	Court: Officer’s coercive statement is not reliable evidence of inevitability

State v. Barragan, 34 P.3d 1157 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (comments on appropriateness of sua sponte invocation of doctrines)
State v. Tollardo, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. 2012) (overruling on other grounds)
State v. Wagoner, 24 P.3d 306 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (inevitable discovery requires an alternate source pending but not yet realized; "but for" test)
State v. Haidle, 285 P.3d 668 (N.M. 2012) (inevitable discovery requires independent lawful means that would have led to evidence)
State v. Leticia T., 278 P.3d 553 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (canines are not infallible)
State v. Pacheco, 193 P.3d 587 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (catalog of cases where drug-sniffing dogs failed to alert)