 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williamson6/13/2000
en had a separate and particular suspicion about Defendant. Although Officer Owen originally expressed his suspicions as relating to alcohol use, he detailed in his testimony the facts within his knowledge of Defendant's impairment, including Officer Seifert's statement to him that Officer Seifert could not get Defendant to perform the HGN test. These facts, together with the passenger's drug possession, amounted to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant had drugs. See State v. Lyon, 103 N.M. 305, 307, 706 P.2d 516, 518 (Ct. App. 1985) ("`Reasonable suspicion' is judged by an objective standard.").
Lastly, we do not consider this case to be controlled by Flores. In Flores, after officers acting on an anonymous tip were unable to find drugs in the defendant's truck during their roadside search, they moved the defendant and his truck to a city warehouse where they detained the defendant while they searched the truck and another vehicle for two to three hours. See Flores, 1996-NMCA-059, 9-12. We held that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to further detain the defendant after the roadside drug search did not produce probable cause for arrest. See id. 15. We stated that " he reasonableness of the investigatory stop ended after the first search revealed nothing unusual." Id. at 13.
In this case, to the contrary, the HGN test results did not satisfy Officer Owen's suspicions; not all indicators negated impairment. When Officer Owen completed the HGN test, Officer Owen considered whether and how he could continue his investigation based on the information he had obtained. Diligence in conducting an investigation allows a reasonable opportunity to analyze and integrate information received and to consider additional action that may be taken. Officer Owen was engaged in that thought process immediately after completing the HGN test at the time Officer Seifert told him about the passenger. He did not unreasonably delay the investigation or change the nature of Defendant's detention.
Consent
Defendant additionally argues that his consent to Officer Owen's search was invalidated by an improper detention without probable cause and improper questioning about drugs. Because we find that Defendant was legally detained and that Officer Owen's questioning was a legitimate extension of a lawful investigation, Defendant's consent cannot be invalidated on this basis.
Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, we affirm the district court's judgment and sentence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
WE CONCUR:
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge
JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
|