State v. Monafo
2016 NMCA 92
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 1, 2011, Deputy Seely stopped Monafo while he was towing a van; that first stop was later found unconstitutional.
- After release, Seely left the scene but, informed by dispatch of the van owner Castro’s claim that the van was taken without consent, returned and effectuated a second traffic stop moments later.
- Seely asked Monafo for a bill of lading/manifest; Monafo produced a receipt book and handed Seely the page for the van. Seely later leafed through the rest of the receipt book with other officers.
- Seely ran a check on the driver’s license number on the van receipt; when the number did not match the name/address, Seely arrested Monafo for unlawful taking of a vehicle.
- Monafo moved to suppress evidence from the second stop (arguing lack of attenuation) and to suppress contents of the receipt book except the van receipt (arguing consent was limited); he also argued the van might be a "nonrepairable vehicle" outside the statute. The district court denied suppression; Monafo entered a conditional plea and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from second stop is fruit of the unconstitutional first stop (attenuation) | State: attenuation existed because Seely released Monafo and Castro’s arrival/return were intervening events | Monafo: second stop was immediate continuation of the first; no break in causal chain, so evidence must be suppressed | Court: Attenuation existed — release and Monafo’s departure (and Castro’s fortuitous arrival) broke the causal chain; evidence from second stop admissible |
| Scope of consent to inspect receipt book | State: handing over the receipt book without limitation amounted to consent to inspect the whole book | Monafo: consent was limited to the single receipt requested for the van, not the entire book | Court: Consent was limited to the van receipt; Seely impermissibly expanded scope by leafing through the rest — those portions suppressed; van receipt admissible |
| Whether the van falls within the statutory definition of "vehicle" vs. "nonrepairable vehicle" | State: facts could support that the van was a vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Code | Monafo: van was a nonrepairable vehicle (outside the theft statute's scope) | Court: Factual question for jury; district court properly denied pretrial dismissal |
| Remedy and effect on plea | State: evidence from second stop supports conviction; limited suppression unnecessary to overturn plea | Monafo: suppression might affect plea validity | Court: Partially reversed suppression ruling (exclude receipt-book portions except van receipt) and remanded to allow Monafo to withdraw his plea if he chooses |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (holding that evidence obtained as a direct result of unlawful seizure is subject to exclusion unless causal chain is sufficiently attenuated)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (articulating three-factor attenuation test: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of official misconduct)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing reasonable-mistake-of-law as to Fourth Amendment stops)
- United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.) (recognizing that intervening circumstances can dissipate coercive effects of an earlier seizure)
- United States v. Barnum, 564 F.3d 964 (8th Cir.) (unreasonable officer mistake does not necessarily constitute flagrant misconduct for attenuation analysis)