Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed 4th Amendment search & seizure issues in State v. Jose Manuel Martinez. The case involved the expansion of an investigation of an felony aggravated battery case to the detention of the defendant until a canine unit could be called to the scene for a search of the defendant's car.

The defendant was identified as the perpetrator in an aggravated battery where the alleged victim had suffered serious injuries and coma. The police officers went to the location of the alleged incident where they found a number of individuals including the defendant. The officers smelled marijuana in the residence and asked the occupants to step outside. The officers conducted a walk through search but found no evidence of drugs or weapons.

Despite the apparent lack of any evidence of a crime at the scene, the officers then asked if the defendant had any weapons in his car. The defendant answered that all he had in his car was a crowbar. The officer asked to search the car. Defendant refused the search stating that he would retrieve the crowbar for the officer. The officer then detained the defendant calling in the canine unit. Upon searching the vehicle, the officers found two bags containing cocaine, a digital scale, and rolling papers resulting in charges of trafficking a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.

The question was whether the expansion of the investigation under these circumstances was reasonable and constitutional under the 4th Amendment. The Court of Appeals found that the expansion was reasonable thereby denying the defendant's motion for suppression of the cocaine and paraphernalia.

The court stated, "An officer may expand the scope of an investigatory stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity is taking or has taken place... If evidence of another crime surfaces during a routine investigatory stop, the officer may proceed in a reasonable manner to investigate." The court was quite generous toward the investigating officers in allowing for the search on these grounds. The Court stated that the defendant's admission that he had a crowbar, but refusal to allow the search of his vehicle, was an indication of other criminal activity sufficient to justify the detention of the defendant until the canine unit arrived, and the search of the defendant's car.

In light of the customary deference to the 4th Amendment and the expansive protections against unlawful search and seizure under New Mexico law, the outcome is somewhat surprising. The case seems like a good candidate for further appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court where there may be a different outcome.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case of US v. Silva-Arzeta brings both further illumination and concerns to the recent Arizona immigration enforcement bill. There are many in New Mexico clamoring for Arizona style immigration enforcement in our state. This case will provide little comfort to those already concerned about this prospect and the forfeiture of individual rights that it would bring.

In a nutshell, the defendant was stopped by officers while in his car leaving his apartment on suspicion of drug trafficking. The officers questioned the defendant in English. They searched his vehicle finding meth and $1038 in cash. The officers alleged that the defendant then consented to the search of his apartment. Really! That's what they alleged. They stopped him in his car, he is drug trafficker, and he consented to the search of his apartment. Drug dealers everywhere would be appalled by his lack of professionalism. All this was done in English.

After he was arrested, the defendant was finally provided a Spanish speaking interpreter for further questioning at the station. The interrogation at the station was conducted entirely in Spanish. The officers that obtained the consent to the search, searched the defendant's car and apartment and placed him under arrest stated that the defendant's English was fine. It is not clear why the station interrogation was in Spanish given the defendant's mastery of the English language. Perhaps it was because he did not speak English as testified to by his employer who stated that the defendant spoke little English and that he had to use a bilingual employee to assist him in communicating with the defendant on the job.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges in the first trial. The state was able to obtain a retrial and the defendant was then convicted on all counts. The defendant appealed arguing that all evidence seized in the case was seized in violation of the 4th Amendment prohibitions against unlawful search and seizure. The defendant argued that the consent to the search was not and could not be consensual due to his inability to adequately understand English. The 10th Circuit affirmed the conviction.

The court recognized that any warrantless search is presumed unreasonable. One exception of course is a consensual search. The Court stated that "Whether voluntary consent was given is a question of fact, determined by the totality of the circumstances and reviewed for clear error." In short, the question is left to the jury who judgment should not be second guessed. The most obvious question being which jury should we rely on? The first jury that acquitted him on all counts, or the second jury that convicted him?

The court recognized established case-law that "invalidated searches based on consents ... given by Hispanics who did not comprehend what they were doing." Despite the case-law, the court affirmed the conviction stating "Mr. Silva-Arzeta could converse in English sufficiently well to consent to the search." Naturally, no guidance was provided for the definition of "sufficiently well" effectively leaving it up the judgment of law enforcement.

Keep in mind this is what happened here. The defendant's English speaking ability was entirely evaluated by the arresting officers. The testimony of the defendant's employer was ignored as was the defendant's own testimony. And none of the conversations with the defendant were recorded. Not at the scene, and not at the station during the Spanish language interrogation. None of the officers saw fit to record these conversations despite the ease with which it can be done with the officers' standard issue belt-tapes.

These issues are even more problematic when the court states: "Mr. Silva-Arzeta's concerns, however, are the bread and butter of litigation. Much of the controversy at trials could be minimized, if not eliminated, if all acts were videotaped and all conversations recorded." The court further recognized approvingly the defendant's citation of Justice Department guidelines that suggest this practice. However, the court dismissed these as mere suggestions of best practice that do not give rise to constitutional concerns.

In short, a Spanish speaker has no right to protection against unlawful search and seizure. The defendant could be held to have consented based purely upon the self-serving testimony of the arresting officers as in this case where there was no mention of other corroborating witnesses to the defendant's ability to understand and speak English. Finally, officers are not required to record any of the encounter, unless they so choose despite the obvious evidentiary value of a recording.

The folks of New Mexico might want to keep an eye on the immigration enforcement debate in the upcoming elections. It's not just drug dealers that will suffer if New Mexico heads down this path of Arizona. It is not just drug dealers that benefit from the 4th Amendment protections against unlawful search & seizure. Use your imagination, I am out of space, and out of time.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Arguments in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder began yesterday before United States Supreme Court. The case addresses the issue severe immigration consequences of removal and deportation of immigrants from the United States for minor possession of marijuana.

The case involved a situation where the defendant was convicted for simple possession of marijuana in 2004. He was sentenced to 20 days in jail. One year later, he was convicted of simple possession of xanax on a no-contest plea. Both were misdemeanors under Texas law. Despite the fact that both convictions were misdemeanors, the prosecutor argued and the Court agreed (both the district court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas) that successive convictions allowed for the defendant to be charged with drug trafficking for the second offense. Drug trafficking convictions are deportable offenses, with very few exceptions.

The Supreme Court will address whether or not the practice of equating two misdemeanor drug offenses to a drug trafficking offense is constitutionally allowed. Several Circuits have already ruled that it is not with the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) continuing the practice.

The Court's ruling will affect thousands of immigrants facing immigration for misdemeanor drug offenses. Under the current state of the law, there is an exception to removal for first time simple possession of marijuana (less than 30 grams). Any subsequent drug offenses no matter how trivial will result in removal and deportation.

The New York Times addressed an individual who is keenly interested in the case's outcome. The article addressed Jerry Lemaine who had been arrested for a small amount of marijuana as a teenager. That case was dismissed. He was caught later with a single marijuana cigarette in 2007. His public defender had advised him to plead guilty and pay the $100 fine. This would make sense in the typical case, but in case of an immigrant, the plea resulted in Jerry being placed in removal. He has spent the next three years in confinement fighting removal to Haiti where he left when he was 3 years old. The court refused to consider his exemplary life where he was working on a nursing degree, helping to care for a brain injured United States citizen sister, and helping his mother single mother who worked two jobs to care for the family and get them out of a dangerous Bronx neighborhood to Long Island.

There are thousands of others currently in removal proceedings for similar charges of minor possession of marijuana. The Court's ruling will affect thousands of immigrants facing immigration for misdemeanor drug offenses. Under the current state of the law, there is an exception to removal for first time simple possession of marijuana (less than 30 grams). Any subsequent drug offenses no matter how trivial will result in removal and deportation.

The immigration enforcement policies have tragic consequences for many immigrants and their families. The policies have broader policy implications that directly impact local law enforcement, prosecutor offices and the Courts. These will be addressed in the second part of this article.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Read the New York Times Article

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a common drug supplier does not make a conspiracy. In U.S. v. Caldwell, Michael Caldwell was convicted for conspiracy to distribute marijuana with two other individuals based upon the mere presence of a common supplier to Caldwell and another party. The jury determined that the three men had entered into a single a three party conspiracy to distribute at least 100 kilograms of marijuana over a two-year period.

The defendant admitted to a conspiracy with his supplier but denied the conspiracy with respect to the third party. It may sound like an inconsequential rhetorical argument but the finding of the tri-party conspiracy had significant consequences for Caldwell's sentencing. Because of the jury's erroneous finding of a three party conspiracy, the quantity of marijuana involved in the alleged conspiracy pushed Caldwell into a higher sentencing category.

The facts are pretty straightforward. Caldwell had purchased marijuana from Herrera. Caldwell then sold the marijuana to other users. A friend of Caldwell's, Anderson, source had dried up. Caldwell introduced therefore introduced Anderson to Herrera. Anderson then began buying his marijuana from Herrera. Caldwell received no economic benefit for the introduction nor was he involved in the exchanges between Herrera and Anderson other than the initial introduction.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that no single tri-party conspiracy existed. Instead, the government had shown only the existence of multiple conspiracies. The court stated that it is often difficult to distinguish between a single large conspiracy and several small conspiracies. However, the Court stated that it would not uphold the finding of large scale conspiracy by "piling inference upon inference...The evidence supporting the conviction must be substantial and do more than raise a suspicion of guilt."

Citing United States v. Sells (10th Cir. 2007), the Court set forth the following requirements for a finding of a conspiracy:

(1) two or more persons agreed to violate the law, (2) the defendant was aware of the essential objectives of the conspiracy, (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the conspiracy, and (4) the alleged co-conspirators were interdependent.

The pivotal question according to the court was the existence of interdependence of the parties which is present only where the co-conspirators intended to act in concert for their shared and mutual benefit. Citing U.S. v. Evans (10th Cir.1992).

The court boiled the issue down to the question of whether "the mere introduction of a common supplier, made by one drug dealer to another, is sufficient to create a single conspiracy among all the dealers?" The court concluded that it was not.

The finding of a single large scale conspiracy created an erroneous factual basis for Caldwell's sentence. The court should not have included quantities sold by Herrera to Anderson. The case was therefore remanded to district court for resentencing based purely upon the transactions established at trial between Caldwell and Herrera.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com