April 18, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Darrell Crosby, No. A-1-CA-37557

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

21

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Filed 4/18/2019 9:46 AM
~L-
Plaintiff-Appellee, Mark Reynolds
Vv. No. A-1-CA-37557
DARRELL CROSBY,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY

John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
MJ Edge, Assistant Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VANZI, Judge.

{143 Defendant appeals his conviction, following a conditional plea, of driving
under the influence of intoxicating liquor. [DS 1] In his docketing statement,
Defendant challenged the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. [DS 3] This Court

issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm based upon the

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

a sheriff’s deputy’s reasonable suspicion that Defendant was engaged in criminal
activity. [CN 4-5] Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to that proposed
disposition. Having duly considered that memorandum, we are unpersuaded and
affirm.

2} In his memorandum, Defendant continues to assert that evidence should have
been suppressed because he was illegally stopped, arguing that a citizen informant in
this case did not provide enough detail to justify the stop that occurred in this case.
[MIO 3-4] As noted in our calendar notice, however, that the caller had provided law
enforcement with a description of Defendant that included both the clothing he was
wearing and also the color, make, model, and license plate number of his SUV. [CN
3] We also noted that the reporting citizen appears to have followed Defendant after
initially calling the dispatcher, reporting on Defendant’s changing whereabouts and
activities until the deputy arrived. [Id.]

3} In arguing against the district court’s finding of reasonable suspicion,
Defendant cites State ex rel. Taxation & Revenue Department Motor Vehicle Division
v. Van Ruiten, 1988-NMCA-059, 107 N.M. 536, 760 P.2d 1302, in which police
received a report from someone at a convenience store that a man “who was very
intoxicated” had driven away from a store and headed in a specified direction on a

specified road, along with a detailed description of the truck being driven. Jd. 92. We

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

pause to note that this case is exceptionally similar to Van Ruiten, in that the report
received included a detailed description of Defendant’s appearance and vehicle, along
with a description of where he was driving. [RP 49, 59-60, 72]

{4 Defendant asserts, however, that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion in this
case because, unlike in Van Ruiten, he did not personally observe Defendant driving.
[MIO 4] Reasonable suspicion, however, requires only that a law enforcement officer
be “aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those
facts, that, when judged objectively, would lead a reasonable person to believe
criminal activity occurred or was occurring.” State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, 4 8,
146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{5} The fact that Defendant was at a gas station, by himself, pumping gas into his
SUV would generally lead a reasonable person to suspect that he had recently driven
the SUV. [See RP 72 (noting that there was nobody else in the SUV or in the
immediate vicinity)] The additional fact that a citizen had called in a report regarding
Defendant driving that SUV and then described his ongoing progress toward the gas
station only adds to that suspicion. The fact that the deputy then found Defendant,
dressed as described, with the SUV described, at the location described, all tended to
corroborate the veracity of the citizen report. Indeed, it appears that same citizen was

still on the scene, still on the telephone, reporting Defendant’s actions to a dispatcher

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10
11

12

13
14

15
16

when the deputy arrived. [RP 73] Finally, when all of these facts suggesting that |
Defendant had driven his SUV to the gas station were combined with the deputy’s
own subsequent observations that Defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot
eyes, [RP 60] the deputy was in possession of a reasonable suspicion that Defendant
had been driving while intoxicated. In sum, that deputy had a reasonable suspicion
that Defendant was engaged in criminal activity.

{6} | Thus, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary
disposition, we affirm the conviction entered below.

7; ITISSO ORDERED.

_ardetoct Wasa ,

NDA) M. NDA/M. WANZI, Judge

WE CONCUR:

J 2 L. ATTREP, Judge

|
Wa Lise)

ACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge