State v. Ortiz
34,783
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Casino security found a wallet containing Ortiz’s name and contacted a woman who reported her wallet stolen; Ortiz then inquired about the wallet.
- Casino security checked an internal database and saw a record of a person with Ortiz’s name being banned in 2007; they called Pueblo of Sandia Police (PSPD).
- Detective Chavez arrived before confirming the ban, saw surveillance showed Ortiz leaving, ran to intercept, and coordinated a patrol stop with Officer Garcia in the casino parking lot.
- Officer Garcia stopped Ortiz’s car; Chavez patted Ortiz down, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of a patrol car while he confirmed the ban (about ten minutes).
- After confirmation, Chavez arrested Ortiz, had the car towed, and conducted an inventory search that found methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
- Ortiz moved to suppress; the district court found the investigatory detention ripened into a de facto arrest without probable cause and suppressed the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ortiz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSPD’s investigatory detention ripened into a de facto arrest requiring probable cause | Stop and brief detention were reasonable; detention was short (≈10 mins) and officers were diligent confirming the ban; preventing trespass is a substantial government interest (argued also that ban related to narcotics) | Detention became highly intrusive (patdown, handcuffs, placement in patrol car) without probable cause or justification; not aware Ortiz was suspected of narcotics | Court held detention ripened into an unconstitutional de facto arrest; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sewell, 146 N.M. 428, 211 P.3d 885 (2009) (investigatory stop reasonable where officers had reasonable suspicion; duration and intrusiveness evaluated in totality)
- State v. Werner, 117 N.M. 315, 871 P.2d 971 (1994) (detention may be de facto arrest when intrusion is significant and government justification is lacking)
- State v. Skippings, 338 P.3d 128 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (no single factor dispositive; handcuffing and placement in patrol car considered but not determinative)
- State v. Robbs, 136 P.3d 570 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (drug-related government interest can justify greater intrusiveness)
- State v. Pacheco, 145 N.M. 40, 193 P.3d 587 (2008) (reasonable suspicion of drug activity elevates government interest and may justify more intrusive detention)