OPINION
{1} In this case, we determine whether an officer, based on his observation that Defendant’s vehicle had a dealer’s temporary demonstration plate and was traveling at 2 a.m., had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. After our review of the record, we conclude that the officer did not have the requisite individualized and particularized suspicion to justify the stop of Defendant’s vehiclе. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment affirming the metropolitan (metro) court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. We remand to the metro court with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
{2} The facts are undisputed and are based on the officer’s testimony as follows. While the officer was on patrol at approximately 2 a.m., he noticed Defendant’s moving vehicle because the vehicle did not appear to have a license plate. As the officer neared the vehicle, he saw a temporary dealer tag in the right rear window. The temporary tag was a paper dealer tag and not a drive-out tag for a newly purchased vehicle. The officer could not read the tag, but it appeared valid on its face. In the experience оf the state police, a lot of temporary dealer tags are stolen and misused. The officer thought the possibility that a person would be demonstrating a vehicle at 2 a.m. was unreasonable; thus, the officer suspected that Defendant was misusing the temporary dealer tag. The officer stopped Defendant’s vehicle, asked Defendant to produce a driver’s license, and asked him why he was driving the vehicle. Prior to making the stop, the officer did not notice anything else unusual; he had no other reason for the stop.
{3} The officer further testified to the following. State police patrolmen are ex officio agents of the State Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD), which regulates the use of dealer tags. The statutes give officers, as agents of TRD, the authority to investigate the use of a temporary dealer plate at any time of day in order to make sure that the vehicle is in the dealer’s inventory. Thus, the officer routinely stops vehicles with dealer tags at any time of the day in order to determine whether the tags are being properly used. A driver must be engaged in a proper use of the vehicle to avoid getting cited for a violation of the statute. In our case, the officer stoрped the vehicle to determine whether use of the tag was proper, instead of calling the dealer, because the dealership was closed at 2 a.m. Upon further questioning by defense counsel, the officer also testified that he believed the tag was not properly displayed because the tag, which should have been attached to the rear of the vehicle, was displayed on the rear window.
{4} After the officer’s testimony, Defendant moved to suppress any testimony regarding the officer’s investigation of Defendant after the stop, on the ground that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The metro court denied Defendant’s motion. The court relied on these specific facts articulated by the officer: the officer observed Defendant’s vehicle traveling with temporary dealer tags at 2 a.m.; in the course of the officer’s duties as an agent of TRD, he routinely stops vehicles with these tags in order to investigate; and the officer knew of the state police department’s experience with the misuse of temporary dealer tags. Defendant then pleaded guilty to a first offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
{5} Defendant appealed to the district court, pursuant to Rule 7-703(A) NMRA. In a written memorandum opinion, the district court affirmed the metro court’s sentencing order, which was entered after the denial of Defendant’s motion. See generally NMSA 1978, § 34-8A-6(C) (1993) (providing that the metro court is the court of record for criminal DWI cases); Rule 7-703(J) (observing that appeals involving DWI are exceptions to de novо appeals from the metro court to the district court). The district court ruled that the following facts, as established by the officer’s testimony, were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the tag was being misused: (1) the vehicle was traveling at 2 a.m. with a temporary dealer tag; (2) the tag was the type used for demonstrating a vehicle, pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 66-3-6(F) (1998); (3) a tag issued pursuant to Section 66-3-6 (F) is not for use on a vehicle loaned to a customer for the customer’s convenience; and (4) the dealership, under whose name the tag was issued, was closed. Defendant now appeals the district court’s judgment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{6} On appellate review of the metro court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we must determine whether the law was correctly applied to the facts. See State v. Eli L.,
III. DISCUSSION
{7} The State asserts that the officer testified to specific, articulable facts constituting reasonable suspicion. The officer testified that he stopped the vehicle because, in his experience, temporary dealer tags were often stolen or misused and because Defendant’s vehicle was traveling with a temporary dealer tag at 2 a.m., a time at which dealerships are not оpen. From these facts, the State asserts that the officer could reasonably suspect that Defendant was misusing the temporary dealer tag. We disagree.
{8} An individual’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Patterson,
{9} To have reasonable suspicion in this type of case, a police officer must be aware of specific, articulable facts that, when judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe a traffic offense has occurred or is occurring. Oсhoa,
{10} In our case, thе officer testified that Defendant’s vehicle was traveling at 2 a.m. with temporary dealer plates that are for use only when demonstrating a vehicle. See § 66-3-6(F) (authorizing the issuance of “temporary demonstration plates to dealers”). The officer knew that these types of plates are often misused or stolen. Thus, the officer decided to “check it out” in order to determine whether the tag was being used properly. These facts are not sufficient to support the type of particularized reasonable suspicion, regarding the specific individual detained, that is required to justify a traffic stop. The State does not contend that the officer had knowledge regarding misuse of the specific plate on the vehicle or misuse of temporary plates generally by the specific dealеr to which the plate was issued. The officer did not testify about any specific facts regarding the temporary plate, the vehicle, or the driver that would create reasonable suspicion about that particular plate, vehicle, or driver. When the officer testified, he admitted that the temporary plate was valid on its face and that he had no specific knowledge regarding Defendant’s use of the vehiele. The officer agreed that the only thing Defendant “did wrong” was to drive a vehicle with a temporary demonstration plate at 2 a.m. These facts alone do not support an inference that Defendant was engaged in misuse of the temporary demonstration plate. Section 66-3-6(F) provides no time limitations for the activities permissible with a temporary demonstration plate. Thus, thе officer’s suspicion that Defendant had committed or was committing a violation of the law was not reasonable. Cf. Galvan,
{11} The State also contends that “the unlikely fact that there would be a demonstration of the vehicle at that time of night when no dealerships were open,” combined with the officer’s knowledge regarding the misuse of temporary dealer tags, is sufficient to create reаsonable suspicion. Judging this fact objectively, we do not agree that the time of driving, combined with the officer’s knowledge of general misuse of temporary tags by other drivers, creates reasonable suspicion. See State v. Urioste,
{12} Section 66-3-6(F) specifically provides that “temporary demonstration plates” are for “testing, demonstrating or preparing a vehicle for sale or lease.” As previously noted, the statute does not provide any time-of-day limitation for the activities permitted with the usе of a temporary demonstration plate. Accordingly, it is legal to allow an overnight test-drive of a vehicle, or even a few days’ test driving. There is nothing unreasonable about such a practice. Thus, the facts relied upon by the officer were evidence of neutral conduct — conduct that is permissible under Section 66-3-6(F). We therefore conclude that one cannot reasonably infer, from thеse facts, that Defendant was misusing the temporary dealer tag. See Galvan,
{13} The State relies on Vela v. State,
{14} Significantly, in our case, the officer presented no evidence regarding the location of the dealership or the vehicle’s distance from the dealership. Moreover, the officer did not testify and the State did not argue that the officer relied on his observation of the placement of the temporary tag to justify the stop. When questioned by defense counsel, the officer testified that the temporary demonstration plate was not properly displayed because it was in the rear window and not the rear of the vehicle. Compare NMSA 1978, § 66-3-18(A), (B) (1998) (providing that temporary demonstration plates shall be attаched to the rear of the vehicle), with NMSA 1978, § 66-3-18(B) (2005) (providing that temporary demonstration plates shall be attached to the inside left rear window of the vehicle). However, it is unclear from the officer’s testimony whether his determination regarding improper display of the temporary demonstration plate was made prior to the inception of the stop. See Ochoa,
{15} Cases from other jurisdictions support our decision. While we recognize that the temporary plates in the out-of-state cases are temporary buyer plates, rather than temporary dealer plates, we believe that the reasoning of these cases is applicable to our ease. Cf. § 66-3-6(E) (providing for the issuance of temporary retаil-sale permits). In State v. Childs,
{16} Similarly, in Berry v. State,
{17} Finally, we observe that our decision today does not impede investigations of specific incidents regarding temporary plates, which may have been reported stolen or misused, or investigations of vehicles reported stolen, which may display temporary plates. Notably, the officer in this case had no information regarding theft of a vehicle, theft of specific temporary plates, or misuse of temporary dealer plates by a specific dealer or other individual.
IV. CONCLUSION
{18} We conclude that the specific facts articulated by the officer were not sufficiently individualized or particularized to create reasonable suspicion that Defendant had committed or was committing a traffic violation or other crime. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment. Because the only evidence in support of Defendant’s conviction was gained as a result of the illegal stop, we remand to the metro court with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence entered below.
{19} IT IS SO ORDERED.