balancing of interests test in New Mexico

2019Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052, ¶ 20 . 18 {13} In assessing the constitutional reasonableness of Thompson’s detention of 19 Defendant in this case, we must apply the balancing-of-interests test that we 20 employed in Rodarte and Bricker, which, as indicated, requires us to evaluate, “on 11 1 the one hand, the degree to which [the seizure] intrude[d] upon [Defendant]’s 2 privacy and, on the other, the degree to which [the seizure was] needed for the 3 promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Atwater, 532 U.S. at 361 4 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5

2019Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052, ¶ 20 . 18 {13} In assessing the constitutional reasonableness of Thompson’s detention of 19 Defendant in this case, we must apply the balancing-of-interests test that we 20 employed in Rodarte and Bricker, which, as indicated, requires us to evaluate, “on 11 1 the one hand, the degree to which [the seizure] intrude[d] upon [Defendant]’s 2 privacy and, on the other, the degree to which [the seizure was] needed for the 3 promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Atwater, 532 U.S. at 361 4 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5

2006But see, e.g., State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 ("Our case law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions."); State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052, ¶ 26 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 ("Our appellate courts have preferred a balancing-of-interests test for reasonableness, rather than a bright-line test."), cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-005 , 139 N.M. 568 , 136 P.3d 569 .

2006But see, e.g., State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 ("Our case law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions."); State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052, ¶ 26 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 ("Our appellate courts have preferred a balancing-of-interests test for reasonableness, rather than a bright-line test."), cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-005 , 139 N.M. 568 , 136 P.3d 569 .

2022The Court reasoned that because the Legislature “zeroed in on the traffic offense at issue,” requiring citation and release,1 there was “evidence of an intent to protect individual liberty over perceived governmental need.” Id. ¶ 29. {27} In this case, because the detention of Defendant amounted to an “arrest,” see Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054, ¶ 20 (concluding that “temporary detentions are covered under the term ‘arrest’ as used in Chapter 66”), and because Thompson acted without statutory authority and in violation of Section 66-8-124(A), we conclude that the balancing-of-interests test employed

2022The Court reasoned that because the Legislature “zeroed in on the traffic offense at issue,” requiring citation and release, 1 there was “evidence of an intent to protect individual liberty over perceived governmental need.” Id. ¶ 29. {27} In this case, because the detention of Defendant amounted to an “arrest,” see Slayton, 2009-NMSC-054, ¶ 20 (concluding that “temporary detentions are covered under the term ‘arrest’ as used in Chapter 66”), and because Thompson acted without statutory authority and in violation of Section 66-8-124(A), we conclude that the balancing-of-interests test employed

2006But see, e.g., State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 ("Our case law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions."); State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052, ¶ 26 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 ("Our appellate courts have preferred a balancing-of-interests test for reasonableness, rather than a bright-line test."), cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-005 , 139 N.M. 568 , 136 P.3d 569 .

2006But see, e.g., State v. Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 ("Our case law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions."); State v. Bricker, 2006-NMCA-052, ¶ 26 , 139 N.M. 513 , 134 P.3d 800 ("Our appellate courts have preferred a balancing-of-interests test for reasonableness, rather than a bright-line test."), cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-005 , 139 N.M. 568 , 136 P.3d 569 .

2006See Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 ; Vandenberg, 2003-NMSC-030, ¶ 23 , 134 N.M. 566 , 81 P.3d 19 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 ; Reynolds, 119 N.M. at 385 , 890 P.2d at 1317 ; Werner, 117 N.M. at 317 , 871 P.2d at 973 ; Rodarte, 2005-NMCA-141, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 668 , 125 P.3d 647 ; State v. Jones, 114 N.M. 147, 150 , 835 P.2d 863, 866 (Ct.App.1992) (stating that the Fourth Amendment establishes a reasonableness standard that permits lesser intrusion without warrants, based on a balance of “the degree of intrusion into an individual

2006See Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 ; Vandenberg, 2003-NMSC-030, ¶ 23 , 134 N.M. 566 , 81 P.3d 19 ; State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018 , ¶ 14, 129 N.M. 119 , 2 P.3d 856 ; Reynolds, 119 N.M. at 385 , 890 P.2d at 1317 ; Werner, 117 N.M. at 317 , 871 P.2d at 973 ; Rodarte, 2005-NMCA-141, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 668 , 125 P.3d 647 ; State v. Jones, 114 N.M. 147, 150 , 835 P.2d 863, 866 (Ct.App.1992) (stating that the Fourth Amendment establishes a reasonableness standard that permits lesser intrusion without warrants, based on a balance of “the degree of intrusion into an individual

2006See Rodarte, 2005-NMCA-141, ¶¶ 14-15 , 138 N.M. 668 , 125 P.3d 647 ; see also Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 (“Ornease law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions.”); Werner, 117 N.M. at 317 , 871 P.2d at 973 (“A bright line test does not exist to evaluate whether an investigatory seizure is invasive enough to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause.”).

2006See Rodarte, 2005-NMCA-141, ¶¶ 14-15 , 138 N.M. 668 , 125 P.3d 647 ; see also Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 (“Ornease law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions.”); Werner, 117 N.M. at 317 , 871 P.2d at 973 (“A bright line test does not exist to evaluate whether an investigatory seizure is invasive enough to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause.”).

2006See Rodarte, 2005-NMCA-141, ¶¶ 14-15 , 138 N.M. 668 , 125 P.3d 647 ; see also Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 (“Ornease law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions.”); Werner, 117 N.M. at 317 , 871 P.2d at 973 (“A bright line test does not exist to evaluate whether an investigatory seizure is invasive enough to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause.”).

2006See Rodarte, 2005-NMCA-141, ¶¶ 14-15 , 138 N.M. 668 , 125 P.3d 647 ; see also Duran, 2005-NMSC-034, ¶ 34 , 138 N.M. 414 , 120 P.3d 836 (“Ornease law has consistently disfavored a bright-line test in analyzing Fourth Amendment questions.”); Werner, 117 N.M. at 317 , 871 P.2d at 973 (“A bright line test does not exist to evaluate whether an investigatory seizure is invasive enough to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause.”).