State v. Smith, 35,222

Officer dispatched to a hotel for a possible robbery; dispatcher provided a description of a female suspect.
Officer encountered Smith in the hotel lobby, described her as "very agitated" and matching the suspect description.
Officer asked Smith to place her hands behind her back and conducted a pat-down; Smith pulled and resisted, so the officer handcuffed her.
Because Smith remained disruptive, smelled of alcohol, was unsteady, and had nowhere to stay, the officer placed her in the patrol car and said he would take her to detox; Smith became combative, kicked the car, and tried to keep the door open.
Officer then informed Smith she was under arrest; Smith was later convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance.
Defendant appealed, arguing the pat-down, handcuffing, and arrest/protective-custody placement under the Detoxification Reform Act (DRA) were unlawful. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Lawfulness of frisk/pat-down	Frisk justified: officer had reasonable suspicion of robbery and suspect was agitated	Frisk unlawful: officer lacked articulable suspicion that Smith was armed/dangerous; no indication of weapon or bulge	Frisk lawful — suspected robbery (an inherently dangerous crime) justified protective search
Lawfulness of handcuffing	Handcuffing was a precaution justified by Smith's agitation and resistance during pat-down	Handcuffing unlawfully expanded the detention	Handcuffing lawful — Smith's furtive/resistant behavior and dangerous-suspect context justified restraints
Arrest vs. DRA protective custody	Arrest lawful because Smith engaged in disruptive, potentially criminal conduct beyond mere intoxication	Arrest violated DRA purpose; officer should have used DRA protective-custody process and not criminally charge intoxicated persons	Arrest lawful — DRA does not immunize criminal conduct committed while intoxicated; Smith's disruptive/assaultive acts supported arrest
Scope of detention after frisk/handcuffs	Continued detention and transport to patrol car was reasonable given ongoing disruptive conduct and safety concerns	Continued detention exceeded scope of investigatory stop	Continued detention reasonable under the circumstances and did not require suppression

State v. Boblick, 135 N.M. 754, 93 P.3d 775 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (frisk requires articulable suspicion that person is armed and dangerous)
State v. Talley, 145 N.M. 127, 194 P.3d 742 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (nature of suspected crime is a factor in reasonable-suspicion for a frisk)
State v. Cobbs, 103 N.M. 623, 711 P.2d 900 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985) (protective frisk permissible when suspect is stopped on suspicion of crimes likely to involve weapons)
State v. Lovato, 112 N.M. 517, 817 P.2d 251 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991) (officer may take precautionary measures, including frisk and handcuffing, based on reasonable fears)
State v. Barragan, 131 N.M. 281, 34 P.3d 1157 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (drawing a weapon and securing hands justified where suspect hesitates and behaves furtively in context of dangerous crime)
State v. Correa, 147 N.M. 291, 222 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2009) (DRA does not bar prosecution for criminal offenses committed while intoxicated)