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

• Alamogordo police officers were dispatched to an Albertson’s store regarding a shoplifting incident. The suspect, upon arrest, requested officers to inform the Defendant, Ernest Lugo, who was waiting in a vehicle in the parking lot. Officer Wakefield approached the vehicle to notify the Defendant and observed an odor of marijuana and a visible baggy of marijuana in the vehicle. Defendant admitted to possessing marijuana and hesitantly consented to a vehicle search, which led to the discovery of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was charged with multiple drug-related offenses (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court erred in finding Defendant’s consent to search the vehicle was not voluntary and that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s determination (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Ernest Lugo): Contended that the warrantless search violated his constitutional rights, asserting that his consent to search was not voluntary. Defendant requested suppression of all physical evidence and statements acquired as a result of the search (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that Defendant’s consent to search the vehicle was not voluntary.
• Whether the "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement was properly preserved for appeal by the State.

Disposition

• The district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress was affirmed (para 20).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Julie J. Vargas, Judge, and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, concurring, provided the reasoning for the decision. The court reviewed the district court’s factual determination regarding the voluntary nature of Defendant’s consent under the totality of the circumstances for substantial evidence. The voluntariness of consent is a question of fact, and the state bears the burden of proving consent was given freely and voluntarily. The court applied a three-tiered analysis to determine voluntariness of consent, focusing on whether the consent was specific and unequivocal, given without duress or coercion, and considering the presumption against waiving constitutional rights. The court found substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding that Defendant’s consent was not specific and unequivocal, noting Defendant’s hesitancy and concerns during the interaction with Officer Wakefield. The court did not address whether coercion or duress was present, as Defendant did not give specific and unequivocal consent. Additionally, the court declined to review the "plain view" exception argument on appeal, determining it was not properly preserved by the State during the motion hearing (paras 6-19).