State v. Hacker
34,235
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- Defendant was observed in a mall parking lot by Valor Security guards who suspected a drug transaction after a short hand-to-hand exchange with a vehicle occupant.
- Valor guards intercepted Defendant; he became hostile, reached toward his side, fought with guards, was taken to the ground, handcuffed, and reportedly patted down by security.
- Valor called APD; Defendant fled, was pursued off-property by Valor, caught, and brought to the APD substation on the mall property where Officer Tapia took over.
- Officer Tapia Mirandized Defendant (who invoked), believed he might be armed given his earlier conduct and the guards’ report, and attempted a frisk before removing handcuffs.
- During the frisk, Defendant volunteered he had drugs in his pocket and consented to removal; Tapia retrieved a bag with methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
- The district court found Valor was not a state actor and that Officer Tapia’s pat-down was a reasonable weapons frisk; the court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention/search by private security constituted state action | State: Valor acted as private actors; no state action shown | Hacker: Valor’s conduct should be attributable to the state (unreasonable seizure/search) | Held: Valor was not a state actor under Santiago; no Fourth Amendment violation by private guards |
| Whether APD officer’s pat-down was a permissible protective frisk | State: Tapia reasonably feared for safety given Defendant’s fighting, flight, and reports from guards | Hacker: Tapia’s pat-down was a pretextual/evidence search, not a weapons frisk | Held: Pat-down was justified by articulable suspicion Defendant was armed and dangerous; search was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Santiago, 147 N.M. 76, 217 P.3d 89 (N.M. 2009) (private mall security not a state actor under similar facts)
- State v. Vandenberg, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (N.M. 2003) (articulable suspicion standard for protective pat-downs; officer need not be certain suspect is armed)
- State v. Light, 306 P.3d 534 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings: defer to factual findings, review reasonableness de novo)