457 P.3d 254
N.M.2020Background
- Officer Donald Garrison, with ~20 years’ narcotics experience and numerous undercover buys at an Allsup’s known for drug activity, conducted surveillance of that Allsup’s.
- Garrison observed Martinez (driver) and Crespin (passenger) engage in two short interactions with different third parties: one person approached, entered the left-rear of the vehicle for a few minutes, then left; later an SUV stopped and a woman entered the left-rear briefly and left. Garrison inferred two possible hand-to-hand drug transactions.
- Based on his training, experience, and the location’s reputation, Garrison stopped the vehicle, ordered Crespin out (he would not keep hands visible), handcuffed him, and discovered a clear bag near the right-rear tire that he believed contained methamphetamine.
- Martinez and Crespin denied discarding the bag; the vehicle search was denied, a K-9 alerted at the right-rear, a warrant was obtained, and methamphetamine, marijuana, a scale, cash, and paraphernalia were recovered.
- Martinez moved to suppress arguing the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and amounted to a mere hunch; the district court denied suppression, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to perform a Terry stop | Officer had reasonable suspicion based on: two observed alleged hand-to-hand exchanges, his narcotics training/experience, and that the Allsup’s was a drug hot spot | Observed conduct was equally innocent; officer only had an inarticulate hunch insufficient for a Terry stop | Court held Garrison had a particularized, objective basis for suspicion; reasonable suspicion existed and the stop was lawful |
| Whether State v. Neal controls and requires suppression | Neal is distinguishable because it addressed expanding a lawful traffic stop and excluded certain evidence; here the stop was an initial investigatory stop based on direct observations | Court of Appeals relied on Neal to find only a hunch and reverse suppression denial | Court distinguished Neal, held it was not controlling, and declined to apply it to this initial Terry-stop context |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable-suspicion is a legal question reviewed on totality of circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officer must point to specific, articulable facts to justify a stop)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (reasonable suspicion assessed from the totality of the circumstances; need particularized and objective basis)
- State v. Neal, 142 N.M. 176, 164 P.3d 57 (distinguishable precedent about expanding a traffic stop; Court discussed its limits)
- State v. Yazzie, 376 P.3d 858 (N.M. Supreme Court: same reasonable-suspicion standard under state and federal constitutions)
- United States v. Whitfield, 634 F.3d 741 (example supporting use of high-crime-area plus observed hand-to-hand exchange to find reasonable suspicion)