State v. Tuton, 472 P.3d 1214

Officer Frias stopped Carroll Tuton for failing to signal and failing to stop at a stop sign. Tuton produced a driver’s license but not registration or insurance.
Frias directed Tuton out of the vehicle to issue a citation; Tuton appeared nervous and initially uncooperative.
While Tuton was outside the car and before signing the citation, Frias asked where he had been; Tuton said a friend’s house and named “Josh.”
Friis asked whether that was Josh Dimas, whom Frias suspected of drug trafficking; after Tuton confirmed, Frias obtained consent to search the vehicle and to pat Tuton down.
A backup officer searched Tuton’s wallet and found a plastic bag with 0.73 grams of methamphetamine. The district court denied Tuton’s motion to suppress; Tuton pleaded guilty and appealed the suppression denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tuton)	Held
Whether the officer lawfully expanded the traffic stop by asking where Tuton had been and the friend’s name under the Fourth Amendment and Article II, § 10	Questions about travel history are permissible and did not measurably extend the stop, so expansion was lawful under federal law	Questions exceeded the scope of the traffic stop under Article II, § 10 and lacked reasonable suspicion to investigate other crimes	Under the Fourth Amendment the questions did not impermissibly prolong the stop, but under Article II, § 10 the questioning unlawfully expanded the stop because it was not reasonably related to the traffic offenses and lacked independent reasonable suspicion
Whether Tuton’s subsequent consent to search (and the methamphetamine found) must be suppressed because it was tainted by the unlawful expansion	Consent was voluntary and thus the search and seizure were lawful	Consent was the product of an unconstitutional expansion; evidence is tainted and must be suppressed	The illegal expansion tainted consent; the State did not prove attenuation, so the methamphetamine must be suppressed

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer inquiries unrelated to traffic do not convert a lawful stop so long as they do not measurably extend its duration)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (authority for a traffic stop ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are completed; stops may not be prolonged to investigate unrelated crimes without reasonable suspicion)
State v. Leyva, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (N.M. 2011) (Article II, § 10 ordinarily requires that questions during a traffic stop be reasonably related to the stop unless supported by independent reasonable suspicion, for safety, or consensual)
State v. Funderburg, 144 N.M. 37, 183 P.3d 922 (N.M. 2008) (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. Jason L., 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (N.M. 2000) (facts discovered as a result of a seizure cannot justify the seizure)
State v. Bell, 345 P.3d 342 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (evidence discovered from inquiries unsupported by reasonable suspicion during a stop must be suppressed)
State v. Duran, 138 N.M. 414, 120 P.3d 836 (N.M. 2005) (contextualized travel-history questions may be reasonable where other articulable facts suggest criminal activity)
State v. Figueroa, 148 N.M. 811, 242 P.3d 378 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (an illegal stop taints subsequent consent; prosecution bears burden to show attenuation)