State v. Yazzie

376 P.3d 858

2016 NMSC 026

State of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Petitioner

v.Joann Yazzie, Defendant–Respondent.

NO. S–1–SC–34866

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: June 30, 2016

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Margaret E. McLean, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, B. Douglas Wood, III, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent.

OPINION

DANIELS, Chief Justice.

{1} The New Mexico Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act (MFRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 66–5–201 to –239 (1978, as amended through 2015), prohibits operation of a motor vehicle without liability insurance or other proof of financial responsibility and requires that proof of compliance be reported to the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) of the New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department (the Department) and kept with the vehicle. See § 66–5–205(A)-(B); 66–5–205.1(A)-(B). An MVD database that law enforcement officers can access from their onboard computers reports a compliance status of “active” or “suspended” or “unknown,” based on MVD record information on liability insurance for each individual registered motor vehicle.

{2} In this case, where the evidentiary record demonstrates that close to ninety percent of vehicles reflecting an “unknown” compliance status in MVD records are in fact uninsured in violation of the law, we hold that an officer who learns that the MVD records for a particular vehicle indicate an “unknown” compliance status has constitutionally reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and investigate further. We reverse the contrary opinion of the Court of Appeals.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act

{3} Under the MFRA,

No person shall drive an uninsured motor vehicle, or a motor vehicle for which evidence of financial responsibility as was affirmed to the department is not currently valid, upon the streets or highways of New Mexico unless the person is specifically exempted from the provisions of the [MFRA].

Section 66–5–205(B). Violation of the MFRA is a misdemeanor offense. Section 66–5–205(E).

{4} The Legislature instituted the MFRA out of an awareness “that motor vehicle accidents in New Mexico can result in catastrophic financial hardship” and with the purpose of ensuring that motor vehicle operators “have the ability to respond in damages to accidents” occurring on New Mexico roadways. Section 66–5–201.1. The MFRA further provides that the Department shall neither issue nor renew the registration for an uninsured vehicle and that it shall suspend an existing registration if evidence reflects that insurance has not been maintained. See § 66–5–206.

{5} In 2001, the New Mexico Legislature amended the MFRA to enhance identification of uninsured vehicles. See H.B.847, 45th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.M. 2001); § 66–5–205.1(D), (F). Among the resulting statutory provisions, the Legislature directed the Department to promulgate rules requiring insurance carriers to submit monthly reports of terminated insurance policies for the Department to keep in its files on the corresponding vehicles. Section 66–5–205.1(D). In response, the Department began operating the insurance identification database at issue in this case.

B. Facts and Proceedings

{6} While on routine patrol in San Juan County, New Mexico State Police Officer James Rempe entered the license plate number of the vehicle Defendant Joann Yazzie was driving into his patrol car's mobile data terminal (MDT). The MDT remotely accesses records maintained by the MVD regarding the compliance status of vehicles registered in New Mexico. The query returned a result indicating that the compliance status of the vehicle was “unknown.” Upon receiving the report of “unknown” compliance status, Officer Rempe activated his emergency lights and pulled over Defendant's vehicle to investigate further. The “unknown” query return was the only basis for the traffic stop. Based on further information the officer acquired as a result of the stop, Defendant was arrested and charged in magistrate court with driving while under the influence of alcohol and failure to maintain insurance.

{7} Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the course of the stop, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop and thereby violated her right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The magistrate court denied the motion, and Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to a violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66–8–102 (2010) for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, second offense, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.

{8} On appeal to the district court, Defendant renewed her motion to suppress. At an initial motions hearing, the State offered a witness from the MVD to provide explanatory testimony about the meaning of an MVD designation of “unknown” compliance status and about “circumstances” in which “insurance would be valid [or] not valid.” The district court observed,

I think the State's looking for this expert based on my previous decisions that insurance unknown just doesn't cut it to me. I think it needs to be more, and I think the State's following my previous directive that if they don't have more, I'm going to be suppressing these stops.

{9} Accordingly the State called Walter Martinez, Bureau Chief for the MVD Insurance Tracking and Compliance Program, to testify at the subsequent suppression hearings. Martinez testified that the database Officer Rempe accessed is maintained by a third-party vendor that receives information from insurance carriers and matches it with vehicle registration information provided by the MVD. The MVD receives nightly updates, which are in turn immediately sent to other agencies, including the Department of Public Safety.

{10} An officer requesting insurance information from the system pertaining to a particular vehicle receives one of three possible responses through the MDT: “active” or “suspended” or “unknown.” When entry of vehicle information triggers an “unknown” compliance status, “it is highly likely” that there is no insurance. Martinez testified that the MVD tracking process reflects that this likelihood of no insurance is ninety percent or greater.

Martinez testified that when the MVD learns a vehicle is uninsured, it notifies the owner and allows a total of ninety-five days for the owner to produce evidence of financial responsibility before suspending the registration of that vehicle. During this interim period following notice to the owner, the MVD classifies the compliance status of the vehicle as “unknown.” Martinez further testified about an MVD report of statistics on uninsured-status vehicles, compiling data from the 118,477 vehicles categorized as “unknown” between October 5, 2011, and February 13, 2012. Of the total number of vehicles of “unknown” compliance status, only eleven percent actually turned out to have had the required insurance when classified as “unknown,” ten percent had lapsed insurance coverage that was later reinstated. The registrations of the remaining eighty percent were ultimately suspended for failure to bring the vehicles into compliance with the law. Martinez testified that although the precise numbers fluctuate, the percentages in the four-month sample period were generally reflective of the population of vehicles the MVD monitors for any given period.

{12} The district court found that the investigatory stop was constitutionally valid and denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that at the time Officer Rempe initiated the stop it was reasonable for him to suspect that Defendant was in violation of the MFRA, given the high likelihood that a vehicle with a reported “unknown” compliance status is uninsured.

{13} The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an MDT report that Defendant's insurance status was “unknown” did not, without more support, provide reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop and that MVD statistics correlating “unknown” compliance status with being uninsured could not “serve as a proxy” for the officer's own personal knowledge at the time he conducted the stop, absent evidence he personally knew of the statistical correlation. State v. Yazzie , 2014–NMCA–108, ¶¶ 1, 10, 336 P.3d 984. The Court of Appeals accordingly reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress. Id. ¶¶ 15, 17.

{14} We granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari to consider whether a vehicle traffic stop based only on information from an MVD records inquiry reflecting an “unknown” compliance status for the particular vehicle is supported by reasonable suspicion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

{15} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Ketelson , 2011–NMSC–023, ¶ 9, 150 N.M. 137, 257 P.3d 957. First, we “look for substantial evidence to support the trial court's factual finding, with deference to the district court's review of the testimony and other evidence presented.” State v. Leyva , 2011–NMSC–009, ¶ 30, 149 N.M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 ; see also Fitzhugh v. N.M. Dep't of Labor, Emp't Sec. Div. , 1996–NMSC–044, ¶ 24, 122 N.M. 173, 922 P.2d 555 (“ ‘Substantial evidence’ is evidence that a reasonable mind would regard as adequate to support a conclusion.” (citation omitted)). “We then review the application of the law to those facts, making a de novo determination of the constitutional reasonableness of the search or seizure.” State v. Sewell , 2009–NMSC–033, ¶ 12, 146 N.M. 428, 211 P.3d 885.

{16} In this case, the district court included findings of fact in its order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The parties neither dispute the central facts of this case nor assert that the district court's findings were...