State v. Martinez
35,402
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jun 5, 2017Background
- Officer Donald Garrison (NMSP Narcotics Investigation Section) surveilled an Allsup’s known for drug activity and observed Martinez drive a red four‑door, pump gas, enter the store, and later reenter the car; two different unknown persons briefly entered the car while Martinez was not present.
- Garrison, relying on narcotics training and prior experience at the store, believed each brief occupant visit was an illegal drug transaction, although he did not observe any hand‑to‑hand exchange or money transfer.
- After a brief subsequent encounter in the store area, Garrison activated lights and siren, blocked the red car, read Miranda rights, handcuffed the passenger, and detained Martinez; a clear corner baggie later was observed on the ground near the vehicle and allegedly contained methamphetamine.
- A K‑9 alerted to the right rear passenger side; the vehicle was held pending a warrant; a search warrant was later obtained and executed, yielding methamphetamine, marijuana, paraphernalia, a scale, and cash.
- Martinez moved to suppress all evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure; the district court denied suppression without written findings. On appeal the court reviewed the legality of the investigatory stop and reversed, excluding the challenged evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigatory detention was supported by reasonable suspicion | Officer Garrison’s training, the location’s known drug activity, the sequence of occupants entering the car twice, and the subjects’ nervousness justified individualized suspicion to stop and detain Martinez | No particularized, articulable facts linked Martinez to drug activity; no hand‑to‑hand transactions, no individualized incriminating conduct, and mere presence at a known drug location is insufficient | The stop lacked reasonable suspicion; detention unlawful and resulting evidence excluded; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neal, 164 P.3d 57 (N.M. 2007) (officer’s inference of a drug transaction from brief contact without more does not establish reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Jason L., 2 P.3d 856 (N.M. 2000) (courts will indulge reasonable presumptions supporting suppression rulings but factual findings must be supported by evidence)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (investigatory stops are seizures requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)