AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a child (referred to as "Child") who was adjudicated as a delinquent child by the district court. The adjudication followed an encounter between Child and a police officer, during which the officer requested Child to step out of the car. The district court found this encounter to be consensual and allowed the admission of physical evidence while suppressing Child's statements (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, contending that a reasonable person in his situation would not have felt free to leave, thus constituting a seizure (para 4).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): The specific arguments of the Appellee are not detailed in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State argued in favor of the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress based on the finding of a consensual encounter (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Child's motion to suppress by determining that the encounter between the Child and the police officer was consensual and not a seizure.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order adjudicating the Child as a delinquent child (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J., with Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the evidence supported the district court's factual interpretation and legal conclusion that the Child was not seized during the encounter with the police officer. The court differentiated between a request and a demand to step out of the car, noting that the district court found the officer's action to be a request, which is consistent with a consensual encounter. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's determination, emphasizing that the presence of a firearm in the vehicle justified the officer's request to continue the conversation outside the vehicle, still within the bounds of a consensual encounter (paras 2-4).