State v. Garcia-Ponce, 35,369

Background

Defendant was stopped for speeding; officer requested license/registration/insurance and issued a citation.
Officer smelled a strong odor of marijuana during the stop, asked about marijuana, and Defendant said there was marijuana in a blue backpack in the trunk.
Defendant consented to a vehicle search; during the search officers found marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia in the backpack and rear passenger area.
After discovery, officers arrested Defendant, read Miranda warnings, and the district court suppressed the statements and physical evidence on grounds that Defendant was in custody and had not been Mirandized and that standing/consent issues were unresolved.
The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding legal errors in the district court’s reasoning and directing further proceedings on standing, probable cause/exigent circumstances, and consent scope.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendant was in Miranda custody during the traffic stop	Stop was investigatory, not custody; no Miranda needed	Officer’s restraint and smell of marijuana made Defendant not free to leave — custody requiring Miranda	Not custody for Miranda purposes; investigative detention only, so Miranda not required
Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion/probable cause to expand the stop to investigate marijuana	Odor of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion (even probable cause) to expand the detention and search	Officer’s testimony about smelling raw marijuana was unreliable; thus no basis to expand the stop	Credibility is for fact-finder; court rejects challenge and holds odor supported reasonable suspicion/probable cause to investigate/search
Validity/admissibility of Defendant’s consent to search given lack of Miranda warnings	Miranda not prerequisite to voluntary consent to search; consent admissible unless invalid on other grounds	Consent invalid because it was obtained without Miranda warnings	Miranda warnings are not required for valid consent; district court erred to invalidate consent on Miranda grounds
Standing to challenge the vehicle/backpack search	State argued standing immaterial or Defendant had standing	District court had treated standing as immaterial; Defendant contested	Court reverses district court’s conclusion that standing was immaterial and remands for district court to decide standing under appropriate standards

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilson, 142 N.M. 737 (court describes Miranda custody test and rejects simplistic free-to-leave inquiry)
State v. Hermosillo, 336 P.3d 446 (guiding factors for determining Miranda custody)
State v. Candelaria, 149 N.M. 125 (odor of marijuana can justify extended detention/search after traffic stop)
State v. Capps, 97 N.M. 453 (smell of marijuana can satisfy probable cause for warrantless search)
State v. Shaulis-Powell, 127 N.M. 667 (Miranda warnings not prerequisite to valid consent to search)
State v. Van Dang, 138 N.M. 408 (standing requires a reasonable expectation of privacy that society recognizes)