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 Child-Appellant was found to be a delinquent child by the district court and placed on probation for two years. The delinquency adjudication was based on the offense of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The Child-Appellant argued that the officer was not acting in the lawful discharge of his duties at the time of the arrest because there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to support the seizure, making the seizure unconstitutional (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Gary L. Clingman, District Judge, June 23, 2015: The district court found the Child to be a delinquent child and placed him on probation for two years (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize the Child-Appellant, making the seizure unconstitutional. Contended that resisting an officer's seizure under these circumstances does not violate the resisting-an-officer statute (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer was acting in the lawful discharge of his duties when he seized the Child-Appellant's arm without reasonable suspicion or probable cause (para 2).
• Whether the Child-Appellant's act of resistance constituted a violation of the resisting-an-officer statute under these circumstances (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order adjudicating the Child as delinquent (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges James J. Wechsler, Michael D. Bustamante, and M. Monica Zamora, concluded that the officer was acting within the lawful discharge of his duties even if the arrest or seizure violated the Child-Appellant's constitutional rights. The Court referenced State v. Doe and other cases to support the position that an officer is acting in the lawful discharge of his duties if he is acting within the scope of what he is employed to do, regardless of the legality of the arrest. The Court distinguished the present case from State v. Frazier, where the officer's actions were deemed a personal frolic, by noting that in this case, the officer had detained the Child-Appellant as a suspect in a battery and was transporting him home, which was considered not completely unreasonable. The Court also addressed and rejected the Child-Appellant's argument regarding the failure to give Miranda warnings before the arrest (paras 3-8).