Defendant cites two New Mexico decisions purportedly holding that a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy extends to a rented car. State v Brubaker, 85 N.M. 773; 517 P.2d 908 (Ct App, 1973), State v Lewis, 80 N.M. 274; 454 P.2d 360 (Ct App, 1969). The cases are clearly distinguishable.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2538, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), cited in State v. Shoemaker, 11 Wn. App. 187, 522 P.2d 203 (1974); State v. Brubaker, 85 N.M. 773, 517 P.2d 908 (Ct.App. 1973). See also State v. Aull, 78 N.M. 607, 435 P.2d 437 (1967); State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360 (Ct.App. 1969). The standard by which all search and seizure cases are to be determined is reasonableness.

IV protect only against unreasonable searches and seizures, see Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 347, 352, 540 P.2d 827, 832 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248 (1975), suppression of evidence obtained as a result of a seizure is not appropriate when the seizure is justified and reasonable. See State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 276, 454 P.2d 360, 362 (Ct.App. 1969); see generally State v. Luna, 93 N.M. at 778, 606 P.2d at 188. We have reversed the trial court's conclusion that the warrantless arrest here was unlawful and unjustified.

Since the stop was valid, we next inquire whether detaining the defendants for ten minutes for the sole purpose of getting a cross-commissioned BIA police officer to issue a state traffic citation constitutes an unlawful detainment. The rule of law in New Mexico on detainments is set forth in State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360 (Ct.App. 1969). Judge Wood said, "The issue is the reasonableness of the initial detention and the reasonableness of the police action taken pursuant to that detention."

Terry v. Ohio; see also United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). Our supreme court, in Ryder v. State, 98 N.M. 316, 648 P.2d 774 (1982), cited with approval this court's opinion in State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360 (Ct.App. 1969), recognizing this right. Lewis articulated:

See e.g., United States v. Savage, 459 F.2d 60, 61 (5 Cir. 1972); United States v. Curiale, 414 F.2d 744, 747 (2 Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 959, 90 S.Ct. 433, 24 L.Ed.2d 424; United States v. Boukater, 409 F.2d 537, 538-539 (5 Cir. 1969); United States v. Manarite, 314 F. Supp. 607, 612-613 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd, 448 F.2d 583 (2 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 281, 30 L.Ed.2d 264; United States v. Fitzpatrick, 289 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. Utah 1968); People v. Ward, 27 Cal.App.3d 218, 103 Cal.Rptr. 671, 675-676 (1972); State v. Douglas, 488 P.2d 1366, 1373-1375 (Or. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 974, 92 S.Ct. 2420, 32 L.Ed.2d 674 (1972); Barlow v. State, 280 A.2d 703 (Del. 1971); Thurman v. State, 455 S.W.2d 177 (Tenn.Cr.App. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 930, 28 L.Ed.2d 218. But see Poe v. Oklahoma City, 483 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Okl.Cr.App. 1971); State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360, 363 (1969). Cf. Losieau v. Sigler, 421 F.2d 825, 827 (8 Cir. 1970).

App.), cert. denied, 87 N.M. 450, 535 P.2d 657 (1975), the Court of Appeals held that admission of the results of an involuntary blood test not made after an arrest violates both the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. See also State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 277-78, 454 P.2d 360, 363-64 (Ct.App. 1969) (citing only New Mexico Constitution and suppressing evidence because warrant failed to show probable cause), overruled on other grounds by State v. Nemrod, 85 N.M. 118, 509 P.2d 885 (Ct.App. 1973); Boone v. State, 105 N.M. 223, 227, 731 P.2d 366, 370 (1986) (citing Lewis). These cases, however, do not independently explore the reach of Article II, Section 10.

State v. Torres, supra, is on point but there the affidavit had sufficient specificity to allow the magistrate to issue the search warrant and the facts were within the personal knowledge of the affiant. See also State v. Bowers, 87 N.M. 74, 529 P.2d 300 (Ct.App. 1974); State v. Montoya, 86 N.M. 119, 520 P.2d 275 (Ct.App. 1974) (special concurrence); State v. Perea, 85 N.M. 505, 513 P.2d 1287 (Ct.App. 1973); State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360 (Ct.App. 1969), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Nemrod, 85 N.M. 118, 509 P.2d 885 (Ct.App. 1973); cf. In Re One 1967 Peterbilt Tractor, Etc., 84 N.M. 652, 506 P.2d 1199 (1973); State v. Gorsuch, 87 N.M. 135, 529 P.2d 1256 (Ct.App. 1974).

(1) That the officers had no right to inquire as to what was in the trunk of the automobile, because, at that point, they lacked the probable cause necessary to secure a search warrant; (2) That the conduct of the officers in securing Grant's consent to look into the trunk of the automobile did not meet the requirements for a voluntary consent as announced in State v. Aull, 78 N.M. 607, 435 P.2d 437 (1967), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 927, 88 S.Ct. 1829, 20 L.Ed.2d 668 (1968), and State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360 (Ct.App. 1969), overruled on other grounds, 85 N.M. 118, 509 P.2d 885 (Ct.App. 1973), because there was a conflict in the evidence as to when the officers stated they would get a search warrant. Grant testified that the request was made before he opened the automobile trunk, and the officers testified it was after the trunk was opened, after they had seen the locked footlockers in the trunk, after they had smelled marijuana, after they had arrived at a belief that the marijuana was in the footlockers, after they had requested permission to look in the footlockers, and after Grant had expressed a desire that they not do so because the footlockers did not belong to him;

See also, United States v. Hensley, 374 F.2d 341 (6th Cir. 1967); Shorey v. Warden, 401 F.2d 474 (4th Cir. 1968); Coates v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 97, 413 F.2d 371 (1969); State ex rel. Flournoy v. Wren, 108 Ariz. 356, 498 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1972); State v. Goudy, 479 P.2d 800 (Haw. 1971); Battles v. State, 459 P.2d 623 (Okla.Cr. 1969); State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 190, 454 P.2d 360 (1969). See also, Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969); United States v. Hall, 421 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1969).