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 state police officer stopped a vehicle for a seatbelt violation and detected the odor of burnt marijuana. The driver consented to a search of the vehicle. During the search, the officer found a purse under the driver’s seat containing marijuana. The Defendant, a passenger in the vehicle, admitted ownership of the purse and was arrested for possession of marijuana (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: Denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and accepted a conditional plea of no contest (para 4).
- District Court: Conducted a de novo review, denied the motion to suppress, and entered a judgment and sentence identical to the magistrate court’s decision (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the search of her purse violated her constitutional rights as it exceeded the scope of the driver’s consent and that she did not abandon her expectation of privacy in the purse (paras 16-17, 24-25).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the search was valid under the driver’s consent or, alternatively, that the Defendant abandoned her expectation of privacy in the purse by leaving it in the vehicle (paras 17, 24).
Legal Issues
- Whether a conditional plea reserving the right to appeal is permissible in magistrate court (para 6).
- Whether the search of the Defendant’s purse was lawful under the driver’s consent or the doctrine of abandonment (paras 16-17, 24).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and remanded the case to allow the Defendant to withdraw her conditional plea (paras 36-37).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Castillo and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Conditional Plea in Magistrate Court: The Court held that conditional pleas are permissible in magistrate court, provided they meet the requirements of issue preservation, prosecutorial consent, and court approval. The Court clarified the procedural framework for appeals following such pleas, emphasizing the need for written documentation to facilitate appellate review (paras 6-15).
Search and Consent: The Court found that the search of the Defendant’s purse exceeded the scope of the driver’s consent. Under New Mexico law, consent to search a vehicle does not extend to personal items like a purse unless the consenting party has common authority over the item. The driver lacked such authority, and the Defendant was not required to object to the search as she was unaware of the consent given (paras 18-24).
Abandonment: The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Defendant abandoned her expectation of privacy in the purse. The Defendant did not disclaim ownership or leave the purse in a public place. The act of hiding the purse under the seat did not constitute abandonment, as it did not demonstrate an intent to relinquish ownership permanently (paras 25-35).
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the search violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights, and the motion to suppress should have been granted. The case was remanded to allow the Defendant to withdraw her conditional plea (paras 36-37).