State v. Veith

516 P.3d 177

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.April L. VEITH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. A-1-CA-39059

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: February 3, 2022

Certiorari Denied, May 19, 2022, No. S-1-SC-39230

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1} Defendant April Veith was charged by criminal complaint in magistrate court with petty misdemeanor battery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (1963). The magistrate court dismissed the criminal complaint, and the State appealed to the district court. The district court determined Defendant's arrest was illegal and remanded to magistrate court for imposition of the magistrate court's dismissal order. The State appeals the district court's remand order and argues (1) NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-6 (1983) provided statutory authority for Defendant's arrest; (2) Defendant's warrantless arrest was not a violation of the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) the district court erred in concluding dismissal was the appropriate remedy. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

{2} The parties stipulated that the following facts from the arresting officer's probable cause statement were true for purposes of resolving Defendant's motion. Deputy Deprez was dispatched to a middle school parking lot based on a call in which someone reported that "April" (later identified as Defendant) was attacking the caller's mother outside of the school gym. Upon his arrival at the school, Deputy Deprez observed multiple people attempting to keep Defendant and Jennifer Hebert apart. Deputy Deprez noticed Hebert was taking deep breaths, seemed emotional, and that Defendant had blood on her face. He made sure neither party needed medical attention before beginning his on-the-scene investigation.

{3} Deputy Deprez spoke to Hebert, Defendant, Defendant's husband, and two witnesses while at the scene. Hebert told Deputy Deprez that as she was getting ready to leave and as she was putting her children in her car, Defendant walked up to her and told her she did not have any "beef" with her, but then got in her face and started yelling at her. Hebert stated that Defendant was trying to get her to fight. Hebert explained she told Defendant she did not want to fight and yelled for Defendant's husband to come get Defendant. Hebert told Deputy Deprez that Defendant pushed her, grabbed her by her shirt, shoved her against a wall, and asked if she was scared of her. Hebert went on to say that Defendant began to choke her so she defended herself by punching Defendant in the face. She said they both fought until Defendant's husband and another person separated them.

{4} Deputy Deprez spoke to Defendant who said she had wanted to confront Hebert about a guy they both previously dated, but that she did not have any "beef" about it. Defendant stated Hebert pushed her and she had to defend herself. Later, Defendant changed her story and stated Hebert initially pulled her hair. Deputy Deprez could smell alcohol on Defendant's breath and asked her if she had anything to drink that day. Defendant answered that she had been drinking.

{5} Deputy Deprez spoke to Defendant's husband who explained that when he and Defendant arrived at the school, Defendant approached Hebert. He stated he knew the two had a previous conflict so he attempted to avoid the situation by remaining in his car. He said he did not see who started the altercation, but saw the two fighting so he separated his wife from the situation. Deputy Deprez also spoke to two witnesses who explained Defendant initiated the physical altercation. After completing his interviews of the parties and witnesses, Deputy Deprez arrested Defendant without a warrant and took her to the detention center. Defendant was later charged with battery.

{6} During proceedings in magistrate court, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative to suppress evidence, arguing the arrest violated the misdemeanor arrest rule and that the criminal complaint should be dismissed or statements and evidence should be suppressed because they were tainted by her unlawful arrest. The magistrate court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The State appealed to the district court, and in response, Defendant renewed her motion to dismiss or in the alternative to suppress evidence. After a hearing on the motion, the district court remanded the matter to the magistrate court for imposition of the dismissal order.

DISCUSSION

{7} The State pursues three related but distinct arguments: (1) Section 30-3-6 provided statutory authority for Defendant's arrest; (2) the arrest was a reasonable warrantless arrest under the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) even if the arrest was illegal, dismissal was not the appropriate remedy.

{8} The question we must address is whether Defendant was lawfully arrested without a warrant. Our state strongly prefers arrests be made pursuant to a warrant. State v. Rivera , 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 23, 148 N.M. 659, 241 P.3d 1099. Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]" U.S. Const. amend. IV. In United States v. Watson , 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court applied Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to uphold the constitutionality of a warrantless arrest supported by probable cause and explicit statutory authority. The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests when the arrest is supported by statutory authority and probable cause. See State v. Paananen , 2015-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 17-18, 357 P.3d 958 (holding a warrantless arrest with probable cause, see NMSA 1978, § 30-16-23 (1965), which permits warrantless arrests with probable cause for shoplifting, did not violate the Fourth Amendment based on Watson ). Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution requires that all warrantless arrests be "reasonable." Campos v. State , 1994-NMSC-012, ¶ 5, 117 N.M. 155, 870 P.2d 117. Under our New Mexico Constitution, warrantless arrests based on statutory authority are presumed constitutional, but require an exigency that precluded the arresting officer from procuring a warrant. Id. ¶ 14.

{9} To address the State's appeal, we must first determine if Section 30-3-6 provided statutory authority for the warrantless arrest. We then turn to the State's contention that the arrest was reasonable under the New Mexico Constitution. Because the appeal is based on Defendant's motion to suppress, we are presented with a mixed question of law and fact. We review "factual matters with deference to the district court's findings if substantial evidence exists to support them, and [the appellate courts] review[ ] the district court's application of the law de novo." State v. Almanzar , 2014-NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183.

I. Section 30-3-6 Provided Statutory Authority for Defendant's Arrest

{10} The State first appeals the district court's determination that Section 30-3-6 did not apply to the facts of this case. The State argues that the plain language of the statute provides that so long as an arresting officer has probable cause that a battery, or one of the other crimes listed, has occurred, the officer has authority to perform a warrantless arrest. Defendant answers that the Legislature did not intend to create such a broad exception to the misdemeanor arrest rule, and that the statute applies only to arrests that occur in licensed liquor establishments. We agree with the State.

{11} Because Defendant's appeal centers on our interpretation of Section 30-3-6, we interpret the statute de novo. See State v. Gonzales , 2019-NMCA-036, ¶ 7, 444 P.3d 1064. "In interpreting a statute, our primary objective is to give effect to the Legislature's intent." State v. Trujillo , 2009-NMSC-012, ¶ 11, 146 N.M. 14, 206 P.3d 125. "If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation." State v. McWhorter , 2005-NMCA-133, ¶ 5, 138 N.M. 580, 124 P.3d 215. However, we will not give effect to the plain meaning of the statute if "this leads to an absurd or unreasonable result." State v. Marshall , 2004-NMCA-104, ¶ 7, 136 N.M. 240, 96 P.3d 801. If it will, we construe the statute "according to its obvious spirit or reason[.]" State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos , 1994-NMSC-023, ¶ 3, 117 N.M. 346, 871 P.2d 1352 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{12} "[W]e additionally consider the context surrounding a particular statute, such as its history, its apparent object, and other related statutes." State v. Becenti , 2021-NMCA-060, ¶ 5, 498 P.3d 282 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). We are required to "read the entire statute as a whole so that each provision may be considered in relation to every other part[.]" State v. Bernard , 2015-NMCA-089, ¶ 11, 355 P.3d 831 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In reading the statute as a whole, we are also to consider "its purposes and consequences." State v. Martinez , 2020-NMCA-043, ¶ 34, 472 P.3d 1241.

{13} We start by considering the misdemeanor arrest rule, which provides context for our discussion of the statute in this case. "The misdemeanor arrest rule provides that generally, in New Mexico, an officer may execute a warrantless misdemeanor arrest only if the offense was committed in the officer's presence." Milliron v. Cnty. of San Juan , 2016-NMCA-096, ¶ 28, 384 P.3d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). "The misdemeanor arrest rule is a holdover from the common law distinction between warrantless arrests for felonies and for misdemeanors." State v. Ochoa , 2008-NMSC-023, ¶ 11, 143 N.M....