Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of a "reach-in" search of a defendant on a busy street in the recent case of State v. Williams. The court found that the search was an unlawful invasion of privacy under the circumstances and therefore and illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment.

In a nutshell, there was a felony warrant outstanding on the defendant. The officer legally pulled the defendant over in his car. The officer legally placed the defendant under arrest due to the warrant. The officer then pulled out the defendant's waist-band on his pants looking in and seizing crack cocaine in the defendant's pants. The search and seizure was conducted in broad daylight on a busy city street. The defendant argued the search constituted an illegal strip. The Court disagreed that it was a strip search. However, the Court still found the search to be unreasonable under the circumstances and therefore unconstitutional.

The issue that arose was not whether the officer was entitled to search the defendant. All parties agreed that the officer had the right to search the defendant. However, the manner of the search was found to be unreasonable and unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment. The Court recognized that there are situations where the suspect's sense of modesty and privacy are overridden by exceptional circumstances. However, the cases all indicated that reasonable steps must be taken to protect the suspect's privacy. The Court stated that there was must a proper balance between the immediate need to search the suspect and the invasion of privacy and embarrassment associated with a public search.

In State v. Williams, the search was conducted in broad daylight during rush hour. No evidence was presented by the State showing that appropriate steps were taken to lessen the invasion of the defendant's privacy or that the situation dictated an immediate search in the manner it was conducted. In fact, according to the Court, the trial court did not consider at all the reasonableness of the location or the manner of the search.

Because the State failed to show the reasonableness of the search, or necessity under the circumstances, the search was found to be illegal and the crack cocaine was suppressed. Many will take objection to the ruling. The ruling may seem to run against common sense. However, the New Mexico courts are very protective of constitutional rights often extending protections well beyond the federal courts in similar situations. And the simple fact is the officer could have waited and conducted a full strip search once the suspect was taken to jail. The search as conducted simply was not necessary and some very basic steps could have protected both the defendant's right to privacy as well as the officer's seizure of evidence.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

There are proposed new jury instructions to address the anomalies DWI/DUI arrests and prosecution for sleeping while impaired. The new proposed New Mexico Uniform Jury Instruction §14-4512 more precisely defines the physical control of a vehicle necessary for a DWI/DUI charge. The new proposed jury instruction follows the recent New Mexico Supreme Court case of State v. Simms where it was found that someone sleeping in their vehicle without the keys in the ignition lacked the control or the intent to drive the vehicle necessary for a DWI charge.

The New Mexico Supreme Court in Simms stated that there must not only be control over the vehicle but also an intent to drive. The Court stated that generalized intent was insufficient. It is no longer sufficient for the prosecutor to argue that the individual might have woken up and decided to drive. The new jury instruction sets forth a number of factors for the determination of both the control and intent necessary to charge a parked driver with DWI including: 1) whether the vehicle was running, 2) whether the ignition was in the "on" position, 3) where the key was located, 4) where the driver was located, 5) whether the person was asleep, 6) whether the headlights were on, 7) where the vehicle was stopped, 8) whether the driver had voluntarily pulled off the road, 9) the time of day, 10) the weather conditions, 11) whether the heater or A/C was on, 12) whether the windows were up or down, 13) whether the vehicle was operable, and 14) any reasonable explanations justified by the circumstances.

The clear intent of the new jury instruction is to avoid the arrest and prosecution of individuals who have chosen to act responsibly by avoiding drunken driving. It is also clear that the instruction attempts to avoid abuse of the new Simms ruling by shrewd drivers who may attempt to feign circumstances to avoid arrest for DWI. It remains to be seen how the new Simms ruling will be implemented and how a jury will view these factors in consideration of DWI/DUI cases.

It is unfortunate that Simms and the new jury instruction come too late for many who were unjustly prosecuted for DWI when they were simply trying to do the right thing. There were many such individuals particularly in Albuquerque where DWI enforcement on occasion seems to defy logic or reason. Those like Fidencio Francia, a Vietnam war veteran, who was arrested for trying to sleep off a night of drinking in his car prior to the Simms decision will not benefit from the newly enlightened jury instruction.

On the other hand, the new Simms ruling along with the new jury instruction if adopted should avoid future such unfortunate and misguided prosecution thereby allowing drivers to act responsibly. Albuquerque streets will be made a little safer as a result of the Simms case. No longer will folks like Mr. Francia be encouraged to drive drunk to avoid arrest for sleeping in their vehicle.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Receipt of a target letter means that you are the subject of a felony criminal investigation. More specifically, it means that your case and your charges have been set for a grand jury investigation. The target letter will provide all the particulars regarding the alleged crimes, the statues, the time and location of the grand jury proceedings. What the target letter does not provide is an explanation of the process or your rights in the process.

In the past, it was said that the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. The truth of this adage led the New Mexico Supreme in Jones v. Murdoch to set forth an accused procedural rights for introducing exculpatory evidence at grand jury. In addition to what has turned out to be a very limited right to present exculpatory evidence, the accused has a right to testify on his or her own behalf at grand jury. In the past, most attorneys would rarely if ever allow a client to testify at grand jury. There is a small trend toward allowing clients to testify. Some research has indicated that jurors are more balanced in their judgment than the ham sandwiches would have you believe.

On the other hand, the risks are great. Any testimony and/or admissions given at grand jury is under oath and may later be used at trial in the case of indictment. Worse yet, the attorney for the accused is allowed only minimal participation. The attorney may not present evidence, examine state witnesses or even question his or her own client. Essentially the attorney is limited to whispering in the client's ear for guidance. Clearly, this is not looked upon favorably by jurors as few like seeing a lawyer whispering into the ear of an alleged felon. As a result, the attorney will typically simply sit and observe fingers crossed hoping the client does tank the defense so early in the game.

Despite the studies showing that grand jurors might be more open minded than thought in the past, favorable outcomes are quite rare while damage to the defense and the client are more the norm. And in the end, the grand jury remains a rubber stamp except in rare and exceptional cases. Energy is arguably better spent working on a defense or possible favorable dispositions than fighting the grand jury. Any risk of harming the defense before felony charges have even been filed seems ill advised for ham sandwiches, soups and salads alike.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure generally require a warrant grounded in probable cause prior to the search of a citizen's home. It has long been recognized that the broad protections of the 4th Amendment do not apply to those on probation or parole. The issue was addressed most recently in the New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Benavidez.

In Benavidez, the defendant's parole officer visited the defendant's home for a parole visit. The parole officer knocked on the door repeatedly. The defendant would not answer the door. The parole officer saw the curtains in the defendant's bedroom moving. There was also a car in the driveway in which the parole officer had earlier seen the defendant driving. The parole officer called for police backup. Upon arrival, the officers kicked in the door. Upon searching the home, they found the defendant hiding under a bed. They also found meth and paraphernalia in the defendant's bedroom where he was found hiding.

The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. He entered a conditional plea to the charges reserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of the search and seizure. The defendant argued that the search and seizure was illegal and therefore the drugs and the paraphernalia should be suppressed. The court of appeals found the search and seizure to be lawful drawing upon abundant case-law supporting the search and seizure of the parolee's home.

The court indicated that probationers and parolees do not enjoy the same protections under the 4th Amendment as do ordinary citizens. The Court cited the interests in the State in supervising probationers/parolees which dictate a lesser expectation of privacy. In fact, probation and parole agreements require that the probationer/parolee submit to reasonable searches of his or her home. Thus, a search may be conducted for reasonable suspicion rather than the higher standard of probable cause that applies to ordinary citizens.

In this case, the Court found that the refusal of the defendant to open his door for his parole officer provided reasonable suspicion for the search. The refusal itself constituted a violation of the terms of parole which alone was sufficient grounds for the search. Based upon the Court's finding that the search and seizure were legal under the 4th Amendment, the defendant's appeal was denied.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Broad discovery is fundamental to due process in the defense of criminal charges. The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed the issue in State v. Ortiz. The court stated that a defendant is entitled to all discovery that might reasonably relate to the defense. The defendant need not know in advance that the records, documents or other evidence are helpful, but only that they might possibly be helpful to the defense.

Ortiz involved a DWI stop. The officer stated in grand jury testimony that he stopped the defendant due to erratic driving behavior. Through discovery, the State provided a videotape of the incident. However, the video was missing 6 minutes of footage. The defendant insisted that the State provide the excised portion of the tape. The State refused stating that the missing portion was irrelevant to the case. The defendant also requested the officer's cell phone records for the missing 6 minute period. Again, the State refused stating that the officer had an expectation of privacy in his personal cell phone records.

The district court ordered the State to provide both the missing video footage as well as the officer's cell phone records for the six minute period. The State refused. The Court, exercising its discretionary authority for discovery violations, suppressed all evidence arising from the DWI stop which resulted in dismissal of the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.

The Court of Appeals reiterated the liberal discovery standard in criminal cases. The court cited United States v. Lloyd, a 1993 D.C. Circuit Court case, as follows: the "materiality standard...is not a heavy burden; rather, evidence is material as long as there is a strong indication that it will play an important role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation , corroborating testimony or assisting impeachment or rebuttal."

The Court agreed with the district court that both the missing video footage and the officer's cell phone records during the missing 6 minutes might play a role in the defense. It was not up to the defendant to prove the materiality of the evidence. Instead, the defendant had the right to obtain and review the evidence for its materiality. The court indicated that liberal discovery was fundamental to the defendant's due process rights and his right to a fair trial.

The Court's ruling as well as the liberal rules of discovery are essential to the defense. In addition, they reflect plain common sense. A defendant would hardly be entitled to any discovery if it were required that he or she first show the materiality of the evidence before obtaining it. The materiality of evidence often cannot be known until it has been reviewed. In many cases, a review of the evidence may find that it is immaterial or otherwise inadmissible. But due process dictates that all potentially material or relevant evidence be disclosed. Only then can a determination of admissibility be undertaken. It takes little imagination to envision potential abuse of a less stringent discovery rule.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com