State v. Morgan, S-1-SC-40449

After a midnight report of a fight and possible noise violation at Pine Court, Sergeant Railey went to investigate and heard a loud male-female argument from around the corner. 1
At the cul-de-sac, Railey saw Defendant, Jennifer Morgan, Jose Gurrola, and another person, and he believed a domestic dispute or assault may have occurred. 2
Railey approached without announcing he was police, told Defendant to stay, Defendant and Gurrola ran, and Railey grabbed Defendant’s wrist, causing Defendant to fall. 3
Gurrola and Defendant then tackled and restrained Railey until backup arrived, and Railey was injured and disarmed during the struggle. 4
Defendant was indicted for aggravated battery on a peace officer, false imprisonment, and criminal damage, and moved to suppress evidence of crimes committed after the wrist grab. 5
The district court found no reasonable suspicion and suppressed the later evidence; the Court of Appeals reversed under the new crime exception without deciding reasonable suspicion. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Court of Appeals need to decide reasonable suspicion first? 7	Morgan said the seizure was unlawful, so only the new-crime exception mattered.	The State said reasonable suspicion had to be decided before any attenuation analysis.	The court held reasonable suspicion had to be decided first. 8
Did Railey have reasonable suspicion to detain Morgan? 9	The State argued dispatch plus Railey’s observations supported reasonable suspicion.	Morgan argued Railey lacked specific articulable facts and did not identify himself.	Yes; Railey had reasonable suspicion, so the stop was constitutional and suppression was improper. 10
Was Morgan seized before Railey grabbed his wrist? 11	The State contended there was no seizure until physical restraint because Morgan did not submit.	Morgan argued the command to stay was an unlawful seizure.	No; the seizure occurred when Railey grabbed Morgan’s wrist after Morgan fled. 12

State v. Tapia, 414 P.3d 332 (N.M. 2018) (attenuation doctrine applies to unconstitutional police conduct 13)
State v. Garcia, 217 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2009) (suppression rulings are mixed questions of law and fact 14)
State v. Hubble, 206 P.3d 579 (N.M. 2009) (reasonable suspicion requires specific articulable facts 15)
State v. Jason L., 2 P.3d 856 (N.M. 2000) (reviewing court indulges inferences supporting the district court 16)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (brief stops are valid when justified at inception and limited in scope 17)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (no seizure occurs without actual submission 18)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (attempted seizure is not a seizure absent submission 19)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight may support reasonable suspicion 20)
State v. Harbison, 156 P.3d 30 (N.M. 2007) (flight may be considered in reasonable-suspicion analysis 21)
State v. Hernandez, 364 P.3d 313 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (undercover officers can have reasonable suspicion without announcing identity 22)
State v. Wing, 505 P.3d 905 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022) (presence near a crime area late at night can contribute to reasonable suspicion 23)