State v. Siqueiros-Valenzuela
35,194
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Officer Garcia observed Defendant briefly touch (but not cross) the left yellow shoulder line while passing two semi-trucks on I-40 at ~70–75 mph; dashcam showed a single, momentary contact.
- Based on alleged violation of NMSA 1978 § 66-7-317(A) (failure to maintain a lane), Officer Garcia initiated a traffic stop.
- After ~20 minutes initial contact and issuance of two citations (failure to maintain lane; no driver’s license), the officer continued questioning, obtained consent to search ~27 minutes after stop, and found methamphetamine.
- Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officer impermissibly expanded the stop.
- The district court ruled the single, brief touching did not give reasonable suspicion to stop under § 66-7-317(A) (statute requires driving “as nearly as practicable” within a single lane) and suppressed the evidence.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the stop lacked reasonable suspicion and the ensuing evidence was fruit of the illegal stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single, momentary touching of a lane/shoulder line violates § 66-7-317(A) and supplies reasonable suspicion for a stop | Touching the lane line alone can justify a stop (State relied on Bassols and urged a per se or at least suspicion-supporting rule) | Single, momentary touching while safely passing semi-trucks did not violate statute; no reasonable suspicion existed | Court held statute’s phrase “as nearly as practicable” requires a fact-specific totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry; single, momentary touching under these facts did not supply reasonable suspicion and stop was invalid |
| Proper interpretive standard for § 66-7-317(A) (“as nearly as practicable”) | The State urged a stricter reading that penalizes touching the line absent proof driver ascertained safety | Defendant urged a flexible standard accounting for feasibility and safety (totality of circumstances) | Court adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances approach (following Tenth Circuit precedent) and gave effect to the “as nearly as practicable” qualification |
| Whether officer had an independent, preserved argument that Defendant was impaired to justify the stop | On appeal, State argued possible impairment justified stop | Defendant pointed out impairment was not argued below and thus not preserved | Court declined to consider impairment because the State did not raise it in district court; issue not preserved |
| Whether evidence from vehicle search should be suppressed as fruit of illegal stop | State did not argue attenuation/purging of taint | Defendant argued evidence is fruit of illegal stop and must be suppressed | Court affirmed suppression because State did not show the evidence was purged of the stop’s taint |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alvarado, 430 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir.) (interpreting “as nearly as practicable” via fact-specific inquiry)
- United States v. Cline, 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir.) (totality of circumstances controls lane-maintenance questions)
- United States v. Ozbirn, 189 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir.) (same statutory interpretation principle)
- Archibeque v. Homrich, 543 P.2d 820 (N.M.) (earlier New Mexico civil precedent construing prior version of lane statute)
- Aragon v. Speelman, 491 P.2d 173 (N.M.) (prior New Mexico appellate authority on lane statutes)
- Bassols v. United States, 775 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (D.N.M.) (federal district court decision applying a stricter view but applying a fact-specific test)