State v. Garcia, 2017 NMCA 68

At 6:55 p.m. a 911 caller (a woman who had recently dated Garcia) reported a "disorderly subject" banging on her door and sliding notes under it; she described him as shirtless and driving a black Ford F-150 (Harley Davidson edition).
Deputy Trevor Weeks was dispatched; the caller later called again (7:08 p.m.) to report the subject was leaving the apartment complex in a vehicle.
Deputy Weeks arrived at 7:10 p.m., observed a shirtless man driving a black Ford F-150 exiting the gated complex (the complex had one entry/exit), and stopped the vehicle based on the dispatch information.
The stop led to Garcia’s arrest for aggravated DWI; Garcia moved to suppress evidence obtained from the detention, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and that probable cause should have been required.
Metropolitan court denied the motion; district court affirmed, finding Deputy Weeks had a reasonable and particularized suspicion; this appeal followed from the district court’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garcia)	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to effect an investigatory stop	Dispatch provided specific, contemporaneous ID info (appearance, vehicle, location, second 911 update); that information gave the officer reasonable suspicion to investigate possible trespass/harassment and potential for violence	The conduct was not criminal on its face; dispatch did not report violence and the stop required more than proximity or an unverified caller—the stop lacked particularized suspicion	Held: Officer had reasonable, particularized suspicion based on totality of circumstances (caller’s 911 reports, specific description, short time lapse, single-entry complex); suppression denial affirmed
Whether the detention must be judged by probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion	The State treated the encounter as an investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion	Garcia argued the higher probable cause standard should apply	Court declined to reach the argument because the motion challenged the investigatory stop (reasonable suspicion governs); probable cause issue not decided

State v. Vandenberg, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (mixed question standard for suppression review)
State v. Jason L., 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (investigatory detention permitted with reasonable and articulable suspicion)
State v. Hubble, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579 (automobile stop is a seizure; officer’s objective-reasonableness inquiry)
State v. Garcia, 147 N.M. 134, 217 P.3d 1032 (officer lacked particularized suspicion where defendant was merely in vicinity and no identifying info tied him to the call)
State v. Funderburg, 144 N.M. 37, 183 P.3d 922 (Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures)