State v. Duran

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Dang

    135 N.M. 719 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    DISCUSSION {14} This case involves the proper scope of a roadside search under State v. Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, 126 N.M. 569, 973 P.2d 246, State v. Jutte, 1998-NMCA-150, 126 N.M. 244, 968 P.2d 334, and other similar cases, most recently State v. Duran, 2003-NMCA-112, 134 N.M. 367, 76 P.3d 1124, cert. granted, 134 N.M. 320, 76 P.3d 638 (Sept. 3, 2003).

  2. State v. Duran

    138 N.M. 414 (N.M. 2005)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that an officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate a driver for drug offenses based on the driver's unusual degree of nervousness where the officer "observed the strange and suspicious tools in the back of the car and smelled the raw odor of gasoline"; the fact that the driver was "traveling on a drug trafficking route," one that was indirect for the driver; and the officer's "impression that [the d]efendant was making her story up as she went along"

    {18} The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Officer Johnston impermissibly expanded the scope of the search by asking Defendant questions about her travel plans. State v. Duran, 2003-NMCA-112, ¶ 21, 134 N.M. 367, 76 P.3d 1124. The court held that asking about travel plans was not reasonably related to the circumstances that initially justified the stop, i.e. the misplaced or concealed temporary tag.

  3. U.S. v. Barnes

    Criminal No. 05-188 WJ (D.N.M. Sep. 16, 2005)

    Under New Mexico law when a warrantless arrest is challenged, the Government must prove that the arrest meets constitutional muster. State of New Mexico v. Ponce, 103 P.3d 54 (N.M.App. 2004) cert. granted 103 P.3d 1098, 2004-NMCERT-12 (N.M. Dec 06, 2004) (No. 28,917); State of New Mexico v. Duran, 76 P.3d 1124 (N.M.App. 2003) cert. granted 76 P.3d 638 (N.M. Sep 03, 2003) (No. 28,241). In Ponce, the defendant was on ISP supervision based on prior convictions for aggravated assault and battery.

  4. State v. Funderburg

    144 N.M. 37 (N.M. 2008)   Cited 65 times
    Recognizing that officers may ask questions about travel based on circumstances that evolve after the stop

    In each case, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court, concluding that the officer impermissibly expanded the scope of the stop because the officer did not articulate a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify continued detention. Van Dang, 2004-NMCA-067, 135 N.M. 719, 93 P.3d 1; State v. Duran, 2003-NMCA-112, 134 N.M. 367, 76 P.3d 1124. {23} In each case, we reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the decision of the district court to deny the motion to suppress.

  5. State v. Vandenberg

    134 N.M. 566 (N.M. 2003)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat down during a traffic stop based on the driver's "extreme nervousness" and additional "specific observations of the suspect's conduct" that raised concerns about officer safety

    I think the Court of Appeals in this case did that. To rely on Chapman to reverse the Court of Appeals in this case seems to me not only wrong, see e.g. State v. Pierce, 77 P.3d 292, 296, ¶ 12 (2003) (holding that even extremely nervous and fidgety behavior without more does not justify a Terry patdown); State v. Duran, 76 P.3d 1124, 1129, ¶ 19 (2003) (confirming that an officer's training and experience must actually result in articulable observations justifying an additional investigation), but unnecessary, although limiting Chapman is, as we all agree, difficult. To rely on it to reverse in this case, however, seems to me to limit Defendants' federal constitutional right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure as well as create a new exception from the general requirement that a search requires a warrant.

  6. State v. Ponce

    136 N.M. 614 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing that probation fulfills the "in custody" requirement for purposes of habeas corpus relief

    In the face of a defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest or search, the State is required to present testimony or other evidence showing that the arrest or search met constitutional muster. See State v. Duran, 2003-NMCA-112, ¶ 15, 134 N.M. 367, 76 P.3d 1124 ("[D]efendants have the burden to raise an issue as to their illegal search and seizure claims. Once they have done so, the burden shifts to the [S]tate to justify the warrantless search [or seizure].

  7. State v. Prince

    136 N.M. 521 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 35 times
    Holding consent must be purged from all taint

    Lowe, 2004-NMCA-054, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 520, 90 P.3d 539; State v. Taylor, 1999-NMCA-022, ¶ 14, 126 N.M. 569, 973 P.2d 246. Contemporaneous or continued investigation beyond the scope of the initial traffic stop is justified only if the officer can articulate specific and particularized factors that give rise to an objectively reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity has been or may be afoot. Lowe, 2004-NMCA-054, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 520, 90 P.3d 539; State v. Duran, 2003-NMCA-112, ¶ 19, 134 N.M. 367, 76 P.3d 1124, cert. granted, Sup.Ct. No. 28,241, 134 N.M. 320, 76 P.3d 638; Romero, 2002-NMCA-064, ¶ 10, 132 N.M. 364, 48 P.3d 102. Generalized suspicions or unparticularized hunches that a person has been or is engaged in criminal activity do not suffice to justify a detention.

  8. State v. Garcia

    135 N.M. 595 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing that whether a person is "dangerous" is a distinct requirement that must be satisfied in order to justify a frisk for weapons and requires evidence that the suspect poses a danger to law enforcement

    We have previously recognized that the State bears the burden of demonstrating the relevance of an officer's training and experience to search and seizure issues. State v. Duran, 2003-NMCA-112, ¶ 19, 134 N.M. 367, 76 P.3d 1124. Here, Defendant did not object to the officer's testimony on the ground that the State had not laid an adequate foundation for the admission of testimony linking the officer's training and experience to his awareness of officer safety concerns.