APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY John A. Dean, Jr.,
District Judge
Hector
H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM
Kenneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque,
NM for Appellant
Arlon
L. Stoker Farmington, NM for Appellee
OPINION
STEPHEN G. FRENCH, JUDGE
{1}
The State appeals from the district court's order
granting Defendant Larry Byrom's motion to suppress
evidence discovered in Defendant's vehicle during a
warrantless search by a police officer. The district court
suppressed the evidence on the ground that the community
caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant
requirement of the United States and the New Mexico
Constitution was not applicable because (1) Defendant was not
arrested before the officer decided to impound and inventory
Defendant's vehicle, and (2) there was no evidence that
the parking lot where Defendant's vehicle was located
posed particular safety concerns or subjected the vehicle to
the risk of theft or vandalism. We reverse the district
court's decision to suppress the evidence because the
applicability of the community caretaker exception does not
depend on the existence of an arrest or on the presentation
of evidence specifically showing unsafe conditions or the
potential for loss or damage.
BACKGROUND
{2}
The facts are taken from the testimony at the suppression
hearing held on June 11, 2015, unless otherwise noted. New
Mexico State Police Sergeant James R. Foreman responded to a
call from dispatch on February 2, 2015 around 3:30 p.m.
concerning a man "slumped over the steering wheel"
of his vehicle in the parking lot of Dino's Mini-Mart in
Farmington, New Mexico. The call was an "EMS
assist"-when emergency medical services are requested,
law enforcement officials often assist for safety purposes.
Sergeant Foreman arrived before the medics and found the
vehicle properly parked in a parking space in front of the
store. Sergeant Foreman approached the vehicle from the
driver's side. The window was rolled down, and he
observed the driver (Defendant) "slumped over."
Sergeant Foreman said he was unable to determine "if he
was sleeping, passed out, . . . unconscious." Defendant
"was sitting there in an unresponsive state."
Sergeant Foreman reached into the vehicle through the window
and "shook" Defendant. Defendant then sat up, put
his hands to his face, and said "I can't see. My
eyes are on fire." Sergeant Foreman said that he was not
sure what to do next but that he knew emergency medical
services were on the way, so he told Defendant to remain
seated and wait for the medics to arrive. Sergeant Foreman
then asked Defendant if he had taken narcotics, "because
it's standard questioning to find out what type of
medical services a person needs when [law enforcement]
make[s] contact with them." Defendant answered
negatively, and Sergeant Foreman asked to see Defendant's
eyes. Sergeant Foreman said that Defendant's eyes were
"pin-pointed" and that he "didn't do much
'til the medics got there" in order to "let
them do their evaluation."
{3}
Medics arrived a few minutes later, and, according to the
district court's findings of fact, "[Sergeant]
Foreman decided, in conjunction with the advice of the EMTs
on the scene, " that Defendant should be taken to the
emergency room. While escorting Defendant from his vehicle to
an ambulance, Sergeant Foreman told Defendant, "You go
to the ER with the medics. I will take care of your vehicle,
then I will meet you at the ER." The district court
found that "Defendant can be heard to respond
'Okay' and then say something which is
inaudible." Defendant did not instruct Sergeant Foreman
about how to care for his vehicle, which turned out to be
rented, and Sergeant Foreman noted that Defendant appeared to
be alone, without anyone accompanying him. Sergeant Foreman
then decided to have the vehicle towed because, according to
his testimony, police policy required that he do so. Sergeant
Foreman added that he was not allowed to simply lock the car
and leave the rented vehicle in the parking lot when no other
person was present to take possession of it. He testified
that police policies require officers conducting inventory
searches of vehicles to complete a tow authorization form
listing all items worth more than $25. Sergeant Foreman
further testified that the reason he decided to have the
vehicle towed was "for the protection of myself and for
the person who was responsible for the vehicle ... we do it
to protect ourselves from anyone saying that. . . there was
$500 in that purse and now there's not."
{4}
Prior to the arrival of the tow truck, Sergeant Foreman
inventoried the vehicle and its contents. Sergeant Foreman
found a closed backpack in the backseat and, upon opening it,
discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was
discharged from the hospital later the same day and was then
arrested as a result of an arrest warrant based upon the
drugs Sergeant Foreman discovered in Defendant's vehicle.
(5} Defendant was charged with trafficking a controlled
substance, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-20 (2006),
and distribution of marijuana, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section
30-31-22(A)(1)(a) (2011). Defendant moved to suppress all of
the items seized during the course of Sergeant Foreman's
inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, challenging
Sergeant Foreman's authority to impound Defendant's
vehicle. Defendant argued that an officer has statutory
authority to tow a vehicle if: (1) the vehicle was involved
in an accident; (2) the vehicle is evidence of a criminal
offense; or (3) the vehicle was abandoned on or adjacent to a
roadway. Defendant also argued that none of the exceptions to
the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applied:
Sergeant Foreman did not arrest Defendant, so the search
cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest; there
existed no exigencies requiring Sergeant Foreman to search
the vehicle in order to preserve a life or prevent serious
damage to property; Defendant did not consent to the search;
and nothing in plain view in the vehicle gave rise to
Sergeant Foreman's perceived need to search the vehicle.
{6}
In response to the motion, the State argued that the
warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle was reasonable
under the community caretaker exception, citing two New
Mexico cases-State v. Shaw, 1993-NMCA-016, 115 N.M.
174, 848 P.2d 1101, and State v. Ruffino,
1980-NMSC-072, 94 N.M. 500, 612 P.2d 1311-discussing the
impoundment and inventory doctrine of the community caretaker
exception. Following the suppression hearing, the district
court allowed the parties to submit additional briefs.
Defendant's supplemental brief maintained that Sergeant
Foreman's decision to impound the vehicle cannot be
justified under the community caretaker exception because an
officer responding to an emergency assistance call must have
a reasonable basis to associate the emergency with the
location searched. Once medics removed Defendant from the
vehicle, Sergeant Foreman could not possibly have needed to
search the vehicle in order to aid in the emergency response.
The State's supplemental brief maintained that during
each stage of an encounter, an officer's actions must be
justified. The initial encounter was "justified by the
community caretaking doctrine[, ]" and the justification
for the decision to tow and search Defendant's vehicle
after Defendant went to the hospital "is based on the
inventory exception to the warrant requirement."
{7}
The district court entered a written order granting
Defendant's motion to suppress. In the order, the
district court stated that Sergeant Foreman did not lawfully
acquire custody and control of the vehicle prior to
conducting the inventory search. The court noted,
"[t]aking custody and control of a person's vehicle
is not automatic in all circumstances where the officer is
responsible for separating a person from his or her
vehicle." The district court concluded that absent an
arrest, the inventory search was improper. Furthermore,
without evidence showing that leaving the vehicle in the
parking lot subjects it to specific safety concerns,
"[t]he community caretaking doctrine also does not, in
this case, make the warrantless seizure of... Defendant's
car lawful under the Fourth Amendment."
{8}
The State timely appealed. The State argues that Sergeant
Foreman acted as a community caretaker by responding to the
call from dispatch and that his subsequent decision to
impound the vehicle was justified by the impoundment and
inventory doctrine of the community caretaker exception.
Defendant maintains that the emergency aid doctrine of the
community caretaker exception applies and does not justify
Sergeant Foreman's decision to impound and inventory
Defendant's vehicle. We begin with a review of the
community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment and the
doctrines it encompasses-the emergency aid doctrine, the
impoundment and inventory doctrine, and the public servant
doctrine. We detail the differing tests of the two doctrines
at issue, determine the doctrine under which the facts of the
present case must be analyzed, and apply the appropriate
test.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
{9}
"Appellate courts review a district court's decision
to suppress evidence based on the legality of a search as a
mixed question of fact and law." State v. Ryon,2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 11, 137N.M. 174, 108P.3d 1032. "We
view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party and defer to the district court's findings of
historical facts and witness credibility when supported by
substantial evidence." Id. "The legality
of a search, however, ultimately turns on the question of
reasonableness." Id. "Although our inquiry
is necessarily fact-based it compels a careful balancing of
constitutional values, which extends beyond fact-finding, to
shape the parameters of police conduct by placing the
constitutional requirement of reasonableness in factual
context[.]" Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). "We thus review ...