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

• Defendant Manuel Villarreal was observed walking in the street alongside two other individuals in violation of a municipal ordinance. Upon being approached by law enforcement officers, Villarreal exhibited suspicious behavior, including providing a false name and having a gloved hand. A subsequent search revealed a firearm and methamphetamine in his possession. Villarreal challenged the legality of the stop, claiming it was pretextual and in violation of the New Mexico Constitution (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Chaves County, Kea W. Riggs, District Judge: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued the stop was pretextual, violating the New Mexico Constitution, and that the evidence obtained should be suppressed (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended the stop was not pretextual, was based on a legitimate violation of a municipal ordinance, and that the evidence obtained was admissible.

Legal Issues

• Whether the stop of Defendant was pretextual and in violation of the New Mexico Constitution, thereby necessitating the suppression of evidence obtained during the stop (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence (para 16).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring): The court held that the stop was not pretextual as it was based on a legitimate observation of a municipal ordinance violation. The court applied a three-step approach to determine pretextuality, finding that the defendant failed to show an unrelated motive for the stop unsupported by reasonable suspicion. The court noted the officers' non-confrontational manner and the lack of evidence suggesting an ulterior motive for the stop. The court also dismissed claims made by the defense counsel not supported by the record (paras 7-15).