State v. Gonzales, 150 N.M. 74

Detective Gallegos orchestrated a window-tint traffic stop of Gonzales with a canine unit present to pursue a narcotics investigation.
A confidential informant had indicated Gonzales would transport a large amount of methamphetamine south of Albuquerque that afternoon or evening.
Surveillance linked Gonzales to a gold Tahoe leaving a residence, with officers later identifying him as Gonzales and stopping the Tahoe for a tint violation.
After the stop, a narcotics canine alerted to drugs; a warrantless search was pursued and methamphetamine was eventually found with a search warrant.
Gonzales moved to suppress the evidence arguing the stop was pretextual in violation of the New Mexico Constitution; the trial court initially denied the motion and later suppressed per Ochoa III.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a pretextual stop violates Article II, Section 10 of the NM Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was pretextual under NM Constitution	State argues stop based on tint was lawful; canine alert supports reasonable suspicion.	Gonzales contends the real motive was narcotics and unsupported by reasonable suspicion.	Remanded for analysis under Ochoa III.

State v. Ochoa III, 146 N.M. 32, 206 P.3d 143 (2009 NMCA 002) (requires objective evidence of reasonable suspicion for the real stop motive; pretextual analysis)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (subjective intent not relevant in ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis)
State v. Urioste, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964 (2002-NMSC-023) (objective facts determine reasonable suspicion; subjective beliefs not conclusive)
State v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (totality of the circumstances; inferences drawn from experience)