State v. Lucero, 33,685

Shortly before 3:30 a.m., Deputy Hessinger stopped Defendant’s pickup for expired registration and saw small empty plastic baggies on the floorboard; a larger bag was later observed in the passenger door.
The passenger (Defendant’s adult son) had an outstanding arrest warrant; deputies arrested him after a frisk and custody placement.
Deputy Hessinger, suspecting meth trafficking and citing training that traffickers often carry guns, asked Defendant to exit the vehicle and performed a routine pat-down for officer safety.
During the frisk Defendant admitted to carrying a small bag of meth; the deputy felt and removed a baggie and a glass meth pipe from Defendant’s clothing and arrested him.
District court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress; jury convicted Defendant of simple possession and possession of paraphernalia but acquitted on trafficking and conspiracy. Defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Terry frisk	Objectively reasonable: time, darkness, visible drugs, arrest of passenger, suspicion of trafficking justified frisk	Frisk unjustified because officer testified he had no particularized fear of Defendant and frisks anyone he asks out of a vehicle	Frisk upheld: objective standard satisfied; reasonable officer could fear for safety given facts (time, drugs, arrest, trafficking suspicion)
Admissibility after combining/losing baggie	No bad faith; admission and larger bag establish possession; no prejudice from alleged loss	Evidence should be excluded or sanctions because a small baggie was lost/combined	Denial of remedy affirmed: no bad faith, defendant’s admission and other bag make loss non‑material; no prejudice shown
Lesser-included instruction (simple possession vs. trafficking)	Instruction appropriate under controlling test; jury may convict of lesser offense	Instruction improper under older precedent cited by Defendant	Instruction upheld: court applied Meadors test and found lesser included instruction appropriate

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes protective frisk for officer safety)
State v. Rowell, 144 N.M. 371, 188 P.3d 95 (2008) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable)
State v. Vandenberg, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (2003) (objective reasonable-officer standard for frisks)
State v. Paul T., 128 N.M. 360, 993 P.2d 74 (1999) (State bears burden to justify warrantless search)
State v. Pierce, 134 N.M. 388, 77 P.3d 292 (2003) (rejects subjective-fear test for frisks)
State v. Eskridge, 124 N.M. 227, 947 P.2d 502 (1997) (large drug transaction can justify frisk as inherently dangerous crime)
State v. Meadors, 121 N.M. 38, 908 P.2d 731 (1995) (test for when lesser-included instruction is proper)