State v. Portillo
150 N.M. 187
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officer Thatcher stopped a vehicle for speeding; Defendant was a passenger.
- Driver's documents were being located; Defendant remained with hands in lap, eye contact limited.
- Officer Thatcher developed suspicion of narcotics/weapons based on Defendant’s demeanor and requested a second officer to watch him.
- Driver was cited and released; questions about narcotics/weapons were asked of both occupants; driver consented to a vehicle search.
- Defendant also consented to a search after being asked about narcotics/weapons and personal property.
- Narcotics were found in the vehicle, Defendant admitted ownership; he was arrested and charged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendant was illegally detained after the stop | Portillo contends detention extended beyond the stop’s scope | Portillo argues continued questioning was unsupported by reasonable suspicion | Yes, illegal detention extended beyond the stop |
| Whether the narcotics/search evidence is fruit of the illegal detention | State contends consent/independent factors attenuated taint | Ta rrest taint not attenuated; evidence should be suppressed | Evidence suppressed as fruit of the illegality |
| Whether the driver had standing to challenge the search | State argues driver’s rights differ from passenger’s | Defendant lacks standing to challenge search but may challenge detention | Defendant lacked standing to challenge the search, but could challenge detention |
| Whether state constitutional standards differ from federal under Leyva | Leyva allows broader scope under state constitution for continued detention | Leyva requires independent reasonable suspicion for extended questioning under State Constitution | State analysis governs; detention invalid under Article II, Section 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vandenberg, 2003-NMSC-030 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2003) (nervous demeanor alone insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Patterson, 2006-NMCA-037 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2006) (factors for determining if passenger is not free to leave)
- State v. Creech, 111 N.M. 490 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1991) (passengers may challenge stop’s validity even if no privacy interest)
- State v. Waggoner, 97 N.M. 73 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1981) (passengers generally lack standing to challenge vehicle searches)
- State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2000) (factors indicating not free to leave during detention)
- State v. Van Dang, 2005-NMSC-033 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2005) (standing and state constitutional standards for searches)
- State v. Funderburg, 2008-NMSC-026 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2008) (continued detention requires independent reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2011) (different scrutiny under federal vs. state constitutions for post-stop questioning)
- DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2001) (detention taint analysis for passengers in vehicle stops (federal rule))
- United States v. DeLuca, 269 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2001) (nexus test for taint in vehicle searches)