NM: Failure to cite and argue state constitution in trial court waived it

Defendant failed to cite sufficient authority to rely on the state constitution at the suppression hearing. State v. Muñoz, 144 N.M. 350, 2008 NMCA 90, 187 P.3d 696 (Ct. App. 2008), certiorari granted, No. 31,151, June 27, 2008:

[*27] Defendant has entirely failed to preserve the issue under Gomez. He did not argue to the district court that the state constitution provides greater protection than the Federal Constitution and did not state any reason why it should. See Gomez, 1997 NMSC 6, P 23, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1. He failed to even mention the New Mexico Constitution. Affsprung relies on the Fourth Amendment, not the New Mexico Constitution. See Affsprung, 2004 NMCA 38, P 18, 135 N.M. 306, 87 P.3d 1088. If Defendant is arguing on appeal that his trial counsel’s mention of “an additional Miranda issue” in the context of his arguments below raised a separate state constitutional argument that the agents were obligated to inform him that he had a right not to cooperate with them, his argument is an unreasonable stretch of the district court record.

A protective sweep on arrest is authorized even when the defendant does not resist. State v. Whisler, 2008 MT 276, 345 Mont. 292, 190 P.3d 1098 (2008).*

Defendant’s fishtailing was reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Wendling, 2008 SD 77, 754 N.W.2d 837 (2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.