NM: Lack of dog alert did not require stop otherwise with RS to immediately end

Officer had reasonable suspicion of a vehicle which the driver had no apparent authority to be driving while it was being checked out. A drug dog came and did not alert. The lack of a dog alert was not conclusive on the stop having to end. State v. Pacheco, 2008 NMCA 131, 145 N.M. 40, 193 P.3d 587 (2008):

[*25] In summary, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and considering the totality of circumstances, the law enforcement officers conducted a diligent, minimally intrusive investigation, based on a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. On balance, “the government’s interest in deterring methamphetamine use, coupled with its general interest in effective crime prevention and detection, substantially outweigh[ed] the minimal intrusion on Defendant’s liberty” in this case. Robbs, 2006 NMCA 61, P 22. Because the investigation was conducted in an appropriately circumscribed and diligent fashion, the ensuing consensual search of the vehicle was not tainted by prior illegality. See Duran, 2005 NMSC 34, P 42. We therefore conclude that Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.