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 Defendant was observed engaging in two quick hand-to-hand transactions, which led to police initiating contact. Upon noticing the police, the Defendant attempted to swallow a small plastic bag containing an unknown substance. This action prompted the police to seize the Defendant in a more restrictive manner. The Defendant was subsequently indicted on charges of drug trafficking with intent to distribute, tampering with evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the motion to suppress should have been granted due to a lack of reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting his convictions.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the police had reasonable suspicion to initiate contact and seize the Defendant, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to initiate contact and seize the Defendant.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for drug trafficking with intent to distribute, tampering with evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed.
• The Defendant's convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (with Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring):
  The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to initiate contact based on the Defendant's engagement in two quick hand-to-hand transactions and his attempt to swallow a small plastic bag upon noticing the police, which justified a more restrictive seizure (paras 1, 10-14).
  The court concluded that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for drug trafficking with intent to distribute, tampering with evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The evidence included the Defendant's possession of cocaine, his intent to transfer it to another, and the presence of a small digital scale commonly used in the distribution of narcotics (paras 19-26).
  The court addressed the preservation of claims under the New Mexico Constitution, finding that the Defendant's assertions and factual basis were adequate to preserve his claims for appeal (paras 3-5).
  The court applied a de novo review to the constitutional reasonableness of the search or seizure and found that the actions of the police were justified under the circumstances (paras 6-17).