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 Defendant was standing in the middle of a road with a companion when approached by police officers investigating a potential violation of the pedestrians on roadways statute. During the encounter, the Defendant recorded the officers and later resisted arrest, leading to charges including battery and assault upon a peace officer, resisting arrest, and drug possession (paras 4-7).
Procedural History
- District Court: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss charges, leading to a conditional plea of no contest (para 10).
- State v. Penman, 2022-NMCA-065: The Court of Appeals held that the initial stop was unconstitutional but applied the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule, affirming the district court's decision except for dismissing the pedestrians on roadways charge (paras 1, 11-12).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the Court of Appeals erred in treating the lawful discharge of duties as a factual question, applied an overbroad test for lawful discharge, and incorrectly applied the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule (para 2).
- Plaintiff-Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the determination of an officer acting within the lawful discharge of duties is always a factual question.
- Whether the Court of Appeals set forth the correct test for lawful discharge of duties.
- Whether the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule was correctly applied.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals on the issue of whether the lawful discharge of duties can be decided pretrial as a matter of law.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' application of the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule and the rejection of Defendant's argument for dismissing charges pretrial (paras 3, 36).
Reasons
Per Vargas J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the lawful discharge of duties can be decided pretrial as a matter of law when facts are undisputed, reversing the Court of Appeals on this point (para 3). The Court reaffirmed the test from State v. Doe, stating that an officer is lawfully discharging duties when acting within the scope of employment, not on a personal frolic, in bad faith, or using unreasonable force (paras 16-21). The Court found no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable force by the officers, thus upholding the charges against the Defendant (paras 24-25). The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule applied, as the Defendant's actions were sufficiently attenuated from the initial illegal stop (paras 27-35).