United States v. Bassols
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38417
| D.N.M. | 2011Background
- Bassols was stopped by Officer Lucero on Interstate 40 for allegedly driving on the line separating his lane from the shoulder, potentially violating NMSA 1978 § 66-7-317.
- The stop occurred after the Mercury veered onto the solid stripe between the lane and the shoulder on a clear, straight, dry roadway with no adverse conditions.
- Officer Lucero cited Bassols for violating § 66-7-317 and then conducted a consent-based search of the vehicle after Bassols agreed to a search and consented to a pat-down for safety.
- A canine sniff of the exterior of the vehicle followed the initial search, leading to discovery of twenty-seven bundles of marijuana and one bundle of methamphetamine.
- Bassols moved to suppress all evidence, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion, impermissible extension of the stop, and an unlawful pat-down prior to search.
- The district court denied the suppression motion, finding valid reasonable suspicion to stop, consensual continuation, and a lawful pat-down.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bassols' conduct violate § 66-7-317 when he drove on the lane marker? | Bassols touches the marker, not crossing lanes, thus no violation. | Lane marker driving should not be a violation of the statute. | Yes; driving on the lane marker violated the statute. |
| Was the traffic stop justified by reasonable suspicion of a violation of § 66-7-317 (or impairment)? | Officer Lucero observed weaving and lane-line contact giving reasonable suspicion. | No valid violation proven; stop based on mistaken law or lack of impairment basis. | Yes; reasonable suspicion supported the stop. |
| Did the stop unlawfully prolong when asking for consent to search after citation or for further questions? | Post-citation questions were within a consensual extension. | Consent was not voluntary or improperly obtained to extend the stop. | Encounter became consensual; no impermissible prolongation. |
| Was the pat-down search of Bassols justified before the vehicle search? | Pat-down justified for safety before search. | Pat-down not justified or necessary. | Yes; pat-down justified as a protective measure prior to search. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DeGasso, 369 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (traffic stops must be justified at inception and reasonably related in scope)
- United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 1995) (reasonable suspicion governs stop; officer’s subjective intent irrelevant)
- United States v. Eckhart, 569 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2009) (officer need not recite statutes; need actual violation)
- United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (single, minor limb over lane marker can justify stop under 'as nearly as practicable')
- United States v. Alvarado, 430 F.3d 1305 (10th Cir. 2005) (fact-specific inquiry for 'as nearly as practicable' violations; weather/road factors considered)
- United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes bright-line rule from intoxication investigations)
- United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1996) (absence of objectivity if only isolated movement; multi-factor analysis)