## Facts

- A drug task force agent surveilling a suspected drug trafficker’s residence saw an unfamiliar vehicle at the location and later observed it leave.
- The agent reported by radio that the driver was not wearing a seatbelt and requested a uniformed officer stop the vehicle to identify and question the driver about drug activity.
- The uniformed officer followed the vehicle for several blocks but could not independently confirm the seatbelt violation due to tinted windows; he stopped the vehicle based solely on the agent’s report.
- Upon approach, the officer recognized the driver as Julian Ochoa and arrested him on outstanding warrants.
- After arrest, the agent advised Ochoa of his rights, questioned him about drug trafficking, and obtained consent to search the vehicle.
- Ochoa admitted there was a pipe and methamphetamine in the vehicle; the search found methamphetamine, a pipe, and a handgun.
- Ochoa was charged with drug possession and felon-in-possession of a firearm.
- The trial court denied suppression; the intermediate appellate court initially reversed under a misdemeanor-arrest-rule theory; the state supreme court reversed and remanded for consideration of pretext under the state constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether the misdemeanor arrest rule (requiring personal observation to justify a warrantless misdemeanor arrest) limits investigatory traffic stops when the stopping officer did not personally observe the traffic violation.
2. Whether the traffic stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when based on a contemporaneous report from another officer.
3. Whether, and under what standard, a stop supported by an objective traffic basis may nonetheless be unconstitutional as a pretext stop under Article II, § 10 of the New Mexico Constitution (addressed on remand).

## Decision

- The state supreme court held the misdemeanor arrest rule does not apply to investigatory traffic stops.
- The court held the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the stopping officer could rely on the reporting officer’s contemporaneous observation of a seatbelt violation.
- The court remanded for the intermediate appellate court to determine whether the stop was pretextual and, if so, whether the state constitution prohibits such stops.
- On remand, the intermediate appellate court held the stop was pretextual and that pretextual stops violate Article II, § 10, requiring suppression of the resulting evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The misdemeanor arrest rule governing warrantless misdemeanor arrests does not constrain investigatory traffic stops.
- Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may conduct a traffic stop based on reasonably trustworthy information communicated by another officer (fellow-officer/collective-knowledge doctrine).
- A minor traffic infraction can provide sufficient Fourth Amendment justification for a brief stop, even if the officer’s broader investigation concerns more serious crimes.
- Under Article II, § 10 (as applied on remand), a traffic stop may be unconstitutional when a minor traffic basis is used as a subterfuge for an unrelated investigative purpose; the remedy is suppression of evidence derived from the unlawful stop.

## Conclusion

The state supreme court upheld the stop under the Fourth Amendment and rejected applying the misdemeanor arrest rule to investigatory traffic stops, but left open the state-constitutional pretext question; on remand, the intermediate appellate court found the stop pretextual and required suppression under Article II, § 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.


State v. Ochoa, 2008-NMSC-023, 143 N.M. 749, 182 P.3d 130 (N.M. 2008)