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

• A deputy was dispatched to investigate a report of shots fired from a vehicle in a mobile home park. Without specific details about the vehicle involved, the deputy stopped an SUV, the only vehicle seen, and conducted a pat-down search on the defendant, a passenger, who appeared nervous. During the search, the deputy discovered cocaine in the defendant's pocket. The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance but moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop and search were unjustified.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that the deputy had no reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, was not justified in ordering the defendant out for a pat-down, exceeded the scope of a pat-down by investigating a non-weapon item, and that the defendant's consent to the search was not voluntary.
• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Contended that the deputy was entitled to act as he did and that the defendant consented to the removal of the cocaine from his pocket.

Legal Issues

• Whether the initial stop of the vehicle was justified at its inception.
• Whether the deputy was justified in conducting a pat-down search of the defendant.
• Whether the deputy exceeded the scope of a lawful pat-down search by investigating an item clearly not a weapon.
• Whether the defendant's consent to the search was voluntary and sufficient to justify the search.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, but on different grounds than those relied upon by the district court.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Roderick T. Kennedy authoring the opinion and Judges Celia Foy Castillo and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found that the initial stop of the SUV was not justified due to a lack of reasonable suspicion that the occupants were engaged in criminal activity. The report of shots did not specify a vehicle matching the SUV's description, and the deputy did not observe any suspicious behavior prior to the stop. The court also held that, even if the stop had been justified, the deputy exceeded the permissible scope of a protective frisk by investigating an item in the defendant's pocket that was clearly not a weapon, thus rendering the subsequent search and seizure of cocaine unlawful. The court concluded that the defendant's consent to the search was not voluntary, as it was obtained during an unlawful pat-down and under coercive circumstances. The appellate court affirmed the suppression of the evidence, applying the doctrine of "right for any reason" because the deputy's actions exceeded the scope of a lawful search, even though the district court did not base its suppression order on this specific finding.