State v. Randy J.
150 N.M. 683
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Detention for DUI; officer did not advise Child of rights under 32A-2-14(C).
- Child was 16 years old at the time of the March 25, 2009 incident.
- Field sobriety tests performed; observed signs of impairment; led to arrest.
- Blood drawn after implied consent was invoked; officer testified he did not recall Miranda warnings.
- District court suppressed evidence as fruits of rights violation; State appealed.
- Appellate court held the field sobriety test results, blood test results, and implied consent are not statements under 32A-2-14(D) and reversed the suppression; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether field sobriety-test responses are statements under 32A-2-14(D). | Child’s responses could be testimonial. | Responses are nonverbal/non-testimonial. | Not statements; no suppression required. |
| Whether blood test results are statements under 32A-2-14(D). | Blood test results are testimonial. | Blood test results are non-testimonial physical evidence. | Not statements; no suppression required. |
| Whether implied consent to the blood test constitutes a statement under 32A-2-14(D). | Consent to testing is a statement. | Consent under Implied Consent Act is not a statement. | Not a statement; no suppression required. |
| Whether Article II, Section 15 provides greater protection than the Fifth Amendment for Child. | Article II, Section 15 offers broader privacy protections. | No established broader protection beyond the Fifth Amendment. | Child failed to show greater protection; not considered. |
| Whether Article II, Section 10 requires suppression of field sobriety-test results absent valid stop/consent. | Detention violated the constitution, tainting evidence. | Reasonable suspicion justified tests; stop valid. | Reasonable suspicion supported field sobriety testing; no suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030 (N.M. 2001) (establishes remedy for failure to advise rights under 32A-2-14(C))
- Muniz, Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (field sobriety tests generally non-testimonial; some questions may be testimonial)
- Mazzei, State v. Mazzei, 2010-NMCA-054 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (physical evidence excluded from self-incrimination protections; warnings only for testimonial evidence)
- State v. Jade G., 2007-NMSC-010 (N.M. 2007) (statutory interpretation de novo on 32A-2-14(D))
- State v. Gerald B., 2006-NMCA-022 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (standard de novo review; suppression analysis under 32A-2-14)