{1} The State of New Mexico appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. The State argues that the district court erred in granting the motion with regard to a rock of crack cocaine Defendant allegedly threw underneath a car before being handcuffed because Defendant was not seized by the arresting officer until he was placed in handcuffs and therefore Defendant abandoned the crack cocaine. The State also argues that Defendant’s seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion. Because we believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain Defendant, we reverse the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{2} On June 13, 2003, Albuquerque Police Department detectives from the Northeast Impact Team organized and executed an undercover “buy-bust” operation in northeast Albuquerque. The detectives chose the neighborhood in question because they had received “reports of the prevalence of drugs and drug dealing in the area.” Six of the detectives involved in the operation, who were part of the “arrest team,” were dressed in jeans, shirts, and black “tuck” vests that said “Albuquerque Police” with a badge on the front and the word “Police” on the back. The remaining team member, Detective J.R. Potter, who was undercover, wore plain clothes without any insignia identifying him as a detective. All of the detectives were driving unmarked police vehicles.
{3} The “buy-bust” operation consisted of Detective Potter posing as a drug purchaser by driving through the neighborhood and nodding at individuals on the corner. “[I]f he got a nod back, ... he would turn around” and attempt to buy drugs from the individual. At approximately 9:22 p.m., Detective Ray Soto, one of the “arrest team” members, observed Detective Potter interacting with an individual. After pulling his vehicle away from the individual, Detective Potter, using his radio, informed Detective Soto and the rest of his team members that he had just made a cocaine “buy” from that individual. Detective Potter described the suspect as a “black male[,] gray sweatshirt, black pants.” He also informed the detectives that the suspect’s sweatshirt was emblazoned with the phrase: “Real Men Don’t Need Directions” and gave a height estimate of the suspect. The suspect was later identified as Lawrence Clark.
{4} Within thirty seconds of Detective Potter’s cocaine purchase, the remaining members of the “arrest team” arrived and observed a group of “eight to ten subjects”
{5} Defendant, who was in the group, was not standing immediately next to Clark. They were described as being “at ten and two [o’clock] in relation to each other around the circle.” The officers did not observe any interaction between Defendant and Clark. As the detectives got out of their vehicles, the group began to scatter. Detective Soto had his gun drawn. Clark attempted to run and was captured and placed under arrest.
{6} Defendant also departed from the group, in the opposite direction from Clark, in what Detective Soto described as a “slow run.” Detective Soto pursued Defendant, with his gun drawn, shouting “Police; don’t move. Please don’t move.” After Detective Soto told Defendant to get on the ground, Defendant stopped running and “went to his knees” in front of a car and “threw something under the car.” Detective Soto placed Defendant in handcuffs and looked under the car to see what Defendant had thrown. He found a broken glass crack pipe, a lighter, and a small piece of what was later identified as crack cocaine. Detective Soto testified that as he turned around to face Defendant, he noticed that Defendant, while handcuffed, “had his finger on his coin pocket” and was trying to remove something. Detective Soto then reached into Defendant’s pocket and retrieved a second rock of crack cocaine. Defendant was formally arrested and charged with possession of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia.
{7} Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that Detective Soto lacked reasonable suspicion when he pursued and seized Defendant. After hearing argument, the district court granted Defendant’s motion and entered the order from which the State now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{8} The applicable standard of review of a ruling on a motion to suppress is “whether the law was correctly applied to the facts, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.” State v. Joe,
ABANDONMENT ARGUMENTS
{9} The State appears to argue that the initial encounter between Detective Soto and Defendant was consensual and therefore Defendant abandoned the evidence he allegedly threw under the car. As a result, the State’s position appears to be that no seizure took place until Defendant was handcuffed. We do not agree. Our case law recognizes three types of encounters between police officers and citizens in the context of crime investigation. They are “consensual encounters, investigatory detentions, and arrests.” State v. Ryon,
{10} In this case, the record indicates that Detective Soto had his weapon drawn and pursued Defendant while commanding him to stop and get down on the ground. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave in that situation. See Jason L.,
{11} The State also argues that Defendant abandoned the drug paraphernalia and a crack rock because he fled from Detective Soto and therefore he was not seized until Detective Soto placed him in handcuffs. The crux of the State’s argument is that California v. Hodari D.,
{12} The defendant in Hodari D. was standing on a street curb, in a high crime area, when he saw an unmarked police cruiser approaching. Hodari D.,
{13} This Court dealt with a similar issue in Rector, in which the defendant also discarded a rock of crack cocaine while being chased by police officers. Rector,
{15} As we previously stated, we must defer to the district court’s findings of historical fact. Jason L.,
{16} This case is also not like United States v. Lender,
{17} In affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the defendant’s “momentary halt on the sidewalk with his back to the officers” did not constitute “a yielding to their authority” for purposes of determining when he was seized. Id. at 155. Rather, the Court stated that the defendant’s statements and fumbling prior to stopping, in addition to his conduct in immediately reaching for the pistol when it fell, were not consistent with conduct indicating he was yielding to the officers’ authority. Id. The Court stated that the defendant’s conduct was more “consistent with preparation to whirl and shoot the officers.” Id.
{18} The record indicates that Defendant in this case did not exhibit conduct even remotely similar to that of the defendant in Lender. Defendant, in dropping to his knees, did nothing to indicate he was going to continue fleeing, much less attack Detective Soto. Instead, even though Defendant may have been attempting to deceive Detective Soto by discarding contraband, he was still seized because he complied with Detective Soto’s command to cease running and
REASONABLE SUSPICION
{19} Our determination that Defendant did not abandon the evidence he discarded does not end our inquiry. The State argues that the district court erred in granting Defendant’s motion to suppress because Detective Soto’s encounter with Defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion. As an initial point, Defendant argues that the State has waived this issue by conceding the point in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, proposing a conclusion of law stating, “The police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop or detain the defendant.” The State argues both that the concession was a typographical error and that the issue was preserved because the prosecutor and Defendant argued the issue below and because the district court ruled on the issue. We agree with Defendant that the State’s proposed findings purport to concede the issue. However, the issue of reasonable suspicion was litigated at length at the motion to suppress hearing, and our review of the transcript and the record indicate that the district court made a ruling on the issue. Therefore, despite the State’s curiously drafted findings and conclusions, we believe the issue was preserved for review. See State v. Vandenberg,
{20} We therefore address the issue of whether Detective Soto had reasonable suspicion to pursue and detain Defendant. In “appropriate circumstances, a police officer may detain a person in order to investigate possible criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” State v. Eli L.,
{21} The State argues that Detective Soto developed reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant because (1) Detective Soto testified that he was familiar with multiple-person drug sales, (2) Defendant was standing in a group of eight to ten individuals near where one of those individuals had recently sold crack cocaine to an undercover detective, (3) Defendant initially fled from Detective Soto, and (4) Clark fled in the opposite direction of Defendant. We agree with Defendant that “New Mexico has not dispense[d] with the requirement of individualized, particularized suspicion.” Jason L.,
{22} The consideration of a defendant’s flight from police officers as a factor in determining reasonable suspicion is an issue of first impression in New Mexico. The United States Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue in Illinois v. Wardlow,
{24} The United States Supreme Court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant. Id. at 124-25,
Headlong flight — wherever it occurs — is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such. In reviewing the propriety of an officer’s conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences drawn from suspicious behavior, and we cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty from judges or law enforcement officers where none exists. Thus, the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.
Id. at 124-25,
{25} Other federal and state jurisdictions have held that a defendant’s flight need not necessarily be “headlong” as articulated in Wardloiv, in order to be a factor in determining the presence of reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Hank,
{26} In this case, the district court stated that Detective Soto and the APD Impact Team were conducting their “buy-bust” operation in an area known for “the prevalence of drugs and drug dealing.” More significantly, Detective Soto approached a group of eight to ten people knowing that one of them had just committed a crime by selling drugs to an undercover police officer approximately one minute earlier. Defendant fled from Detective Soto in a “slow run” and initially disregarded Detective Soto’s commands to stop running. Detective Soto articulated that he was familiar with multiple-person drug transactions and that he suspected Defendant of being a part of one, along with Clark and the other individuals in the immediate vicinity of Clark. He stated that he was familiar with situations where drug dealers were not working alone, but rather employed other individuals to “hold [drugs] for them” or act as lookouts. See Griffin,
{27} As stated in Wardlow, our totality of the circumstances analysis must not be guided by a requirement of “scientific certainty from ... law enforcement officers where none exists.” Wardlow,
CONCLUSION
{28} When viewed under the totality of the circumstances, Detective Soto had reasonable suspicion to pursue and briefly detain Defendant based on Defendant’s flight in conjunction with the known criminal activity that had just taken place at the location. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
{29} IT IS SO ORDERED.