State v. LETICIA
278 P.3d 553
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Leticia T., a sixteen-year-old, was adjudicated delinquent pursuant to a conditional plea for aggravated battery on a peace officer and aggravated assault (deadly weapon).
- She reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of suppression and dismissal motions; she claimed the trunk search was invalid and the trial delays violated rules.
- The district court denied suppression, reasoning exigent circumstances supported the warrantless trunk search.
- Five officers at the scene cleared the vehicle, conducted searches including a dog sniff, and opened the trunk where a rifle was found.
- The court found the search unreasonable because it relied on standard operating procedure rather than particularized exigent circumstances or a valid protective sweep; the case was remanded.
- The court reversed the suppression denial, remanded for further proceedings, and did not reach or decide the pre-sentence confinement credit issue on advisory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trunk search warrantless due to exigent circumstances? | Child argues exigent circumstances did not exist. | State contends exigency existed to prevent danger/destruction. | Exigency not proven; search unconstitutional. |
| Was the trunk search permissible as a protective sweep? | Child contends no protective sweep justification. | State asserts protective sweep applies to trunk. | Protective sweep justification fails for lack of specific facts. |
| Did the delay in preliminary hearing/trial require dismissal? | Child contends timely hearing/trial rights were violated. | State argues rule/statute violations do not automatically require dismissal. | No reversible error for dismissal under current authority. |
| Should pre-sentence confinement credit be decided on appeal? | Credit should be awarded for time in detention. | Issue was not properly preserved due to disposition on suppression; advisory if remanded. | Not reached; advisory outcome not decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zamora, 2005-NMCA-039 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2005) (exigent circumstances require specific articulable facts for warrantless searches)
- State v. Weidner, 2007-NMCA-063 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2007) (exigency not presumed; must be particularized)
- State v. Moore, 2008-NMCA-056 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2008) (exigency must be actual, not a mere possibility)
- State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1998) (standard for determining exigent circumstances)