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

• Officers stopped the Defendant near his familial residence following a "shots fired" call. During the stop, officers removed the Defendant's backpack, handcuffed him, and conducted a pat-down search. The Defendant's wife removed a bottle of liquor from the backpack, which was then picked up by an officer. The Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication. After being advised of his Miranda rights, the Defendant informed the officers that a nine-millimeter handgun was in the backpack and belonged to his wife. Despite finding no probable cause for the shots fired report, officers arrested the Defendant for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and driving while intoxicated. At the police station, an officer searched the backpack, finding a handgun and drugs. The Defendant consented to the search after the drugs were found (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that the search of the backpack violated the New Mexico Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Contended that his consent was invalid as it was provided after the search (para 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the search of the backpack was lawful because it was performed with the Defendant's consent and also contended that the search was a lawful inventory search (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the warrantless search of the Defendant's backpack was lawful.
• Whether the Defendant's consent to the search of his backpack, obtained after the search, remedied any violation of his constitutional rights.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his backpack was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep and Judge Katherine A. Wray concurring, held that:
  The district court's credibility determination regarding Officer Packer's testimony was supported by substantial evidence, including the content of lapel recordings which did not corroborate the officer's claim that the Defendant requested his backpack be taken to the police station (paras 12-15).
  The warrantless search of the Defendant's backpack did not meet the requirements for a lawful search incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, or an inventory search. The Court declined to review the State's unpreserved arguments for fundamental error, noting the State failed to demonstrate that the district court's ruling was fundamentally unfair or a miscarriage of justice (paras 16-26).
  Consent obtained after an unlawful search does not remedy or justify the violation of the Defendant's constitutional rights. The State failed to provide authority supporting its claim that post-search consent was valid (paras 27-29).