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 stopped at a fixed border patrol checkpoint on I-10 west of Las Cruces, New Mexico. During the stop, a border patrol agent noticed a strong odor of air freshener emanating from the Defendant's vehicle and observed signs of nervousness, such as shaking hands and darting eyes. After being referred to a secondary inspection area, the Defendant voluntarily revealed marijuana cigarettes and consented to a canine search, which led to the discovery of approximately 29 pounds of marijuana in the vehicle's gas tank (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the checkpoint stop.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his constitutional rights were violated during the checkpoint detention, claiming the border patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop and that the evidence obtained should be suppressed (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to extend the detention based on the strong odor of air freshener and the Defendant's nervous behavior, which justified further investigation (paras 1, 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Did the border patrol agents have reasonable suspicion to justify prolonging the Defendant's detention at the checkpoint? (paras 4-5).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (para 12).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Bivins J., Hartz J. concurring):
The Court held that the border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to extend the Defendant's detention based on the totality of the circumstances. The strong odor of air freshener, which the agent testified was unusually strong and often used to mask the smell of drugs, combined with the Defendant's nervous behavior, justified further questioning and referral to the secondary inspection area. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion does not require conduct inconsistent with innocence but rather conduct that warrants further investigation. The brief duration of the detention (six to seven minutes) was also deemed reasonable (paras 5-9, 11).
Dissenting Opinion (Flores J.):
Judge Flores dissented, arguing that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the detention. The presence of air fresheners and the Defendant's nervousness were insufficient to justify further investigation, as both are consistent with innocent behavior. Flores emphasized that extending the detention beyond the scope of a routine checkpoint stop violated the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The dissent relied on precedent, including State v. Estrada, which held that further detention must be based on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and found no such suspicion in this case (paras 14-23).