318 P.3d 180
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Tiakebia Murry pleaded nolo contendere to possession of cocaine after a suppression motion was denied and appellate review was preserved.
- Two APD officers on bicycle patrol observed a non-running Audi with three occupants in an unfamiliar apartment-complex parking lot; car not running raised suspicion.
- Officer Rice ordered the driver to open the door after approaching the car; an open alcohol container and marijuana were observed in the center console.
- Defendant exited the car with a purse nearby containing crumpled bills and perceived cocaine residue; both Driver and Defendant were pat-searched.
- The car was towed; Rice transferred the powder-like residue from the floorboard into a bag for testing; Defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine.
- The district court denied suppression; on appeal the court held the initial encounter was a seizure without reasonable suspicion, invalidating the ensuing searches and suppressing the cocaine evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a seizure at the initial police contact? | State argued contact was consensual until exit. | Murry argued seizure occurred when the driver opened the door. | Seizure occurred at initial approach; suppression warranted. |
| Was there individualized reasonable suspicion at inception? | State contends suspicion arose after observing marijuana; no initial suspicion. | Murry contends lack of individualized suspicion from outset. | No reasonable suspicion at inception; seizure unlawful. |
| Was the twenty-dollar bill with cocaine residue admissible as plain view or inevitable discovery? | State sought admission via plain view/inevitable discovery. | Murry argued tainted evidence from illegal seizure. | Not admissible; tainted by illegality; inevitable discovery not independent. |
| Does the inevitable discovery doctrine apply here? | State contends evidence would have been discovered during inventory independent of seizure. | Murry contends no independent path to discovery. | Inevitable discovery doctrine inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harbison, 2007-NMSC-016 (2007-NMSC-016) (analysis of seizure and reasonable suspicion; mixed questions of fact and law)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers understood officers controlled the scene; not free to depart)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (defining seizure based on reasonable person’s freedom to leave)
- Portillo, 2011-NMCA-079 (2011-NMCA-079) (fruits of an illegal seizure suppressed; taint analysis)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusion of evidence obtained by exploitation of illegality)