Gabaldon v. New Mexico State Police.
No. 24-2104. 6/11/2025. D.N.M. Judge Carson. Traffic Stop—Reasonable Suspicion—Discovery—Deposition Testimony—Sham Affidavit—Spoliation of Evidence—Summary Judgment.
June 11, 2025
New Mexico State Police Officer Smith observed Gabaldon merge his motorcycle into wrong-way traffic lanes before correcting himself. Smith also clocked Gabaldon traveling 78 mph in a 35 mph zone and observed him failing to use a turn signal. Smith activated his lights and siren just before Gabaldon turned into his driveway. Gabaldon began walking toward his house, and Smith asked him to walk to the front of his unit. Gabaldon ignored Smith’s request and refused to provide his name. Smith smelled alcohol on Gabaldon and noticed that his eyes were bloodshot and watery and that his speech was slurred. Smith then arrested Gabaldon for drunk driving and attempted to grab Gabaldon’s arm, but Gabaldon pulled his arms into his chest and grabbed onto his truck that was parked next to his motorcycle. Noticing that Gabaldon had what looked like a knife on his hip, Smith used a leverage takedown to detain Gabaldon, and then realized that Gabaldon had a loaded gun rather than a knife. Meanwhile, Officer Ward arrived to assist Smith. Ward noticed that Gabaldon had tried to remove his leather motorcycle gear, which indicated he belonged to the Bandidos Motorcycle Club (club), and put it in his truck. With Ward’s assistance, Smith was able to handcuff Gabaldon’s arm behind his back. Gabaldon then sued the New Mexico State Police and Officers Smith and Ward in state court, alleging First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional violations as well as state-law claims. Gabaldon maintained during discovery that Smith improperly had stopped him because of his club jacket and patches. Defendants sought to inspect these items, but Gabaldon purportedly returned the jacket and patches to the club and testified that the club had likely burned the items. Defendants moved for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. The district court granted the motion but stated it would determine an appropriate sanction closer to trial. Defendants’ counsel asked Gabaldon in a deposition if he had committed multiple traffic violations, and Gabaldon stated that he could not recall. As relevant here, defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims. In response, Gabaldon submitted an affidavit stating he remembered that he violated no traffic laws, purporting to establish material factual issues to preclude summary judgment. The district court determined that Gabaldon presented a sham affidavit. Gabaldon withdrew his Fifth Amendment claim, and the district court granted summary judgment on the other claims because of qualified immunity. It concluded that reasonable suspicion supported Smith’s traffic stop, that he had probable cause to arrest Gabaldon for driving while intoxicated, and that defendants’ use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
On appeal, Gabaldon argued that the district court erred by granting defendants’ motion for sanctions for spoliation, asserting that the court implied an adverse inference at summary judgment to override the evidence and alleged retaliatory motive as the actual cause for the stop. He appealed the imposed sanction but not the content of the spoliation order, maintaining that his affidavit supported his claim that Smith stopped him because of his Bandidos gear and that the district court excluded this evidence as a sanction. However, nothing in the district court’s order or in the record suggests that the court disregarded the facts to rule against Gabaldon because of an unstated inference that he was affiliated with the Bandidos. And Smith’s subjective motives are not relevant in determining the traffic stop’s reasonableness. Rather, the only inquiry is whether Smith had reasonable suspicion that Gabaldon violated applicable traffic and equipment regulations, which Smith did by witnessing Gabaldon cross the double yellow lines, speed, and fail to signal. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion.
Gabaldon also contended that the district court erred in striking his affidavit, in which he asserted that reviewing Smith’s dashcam footage for the first time refreshed his memory, and that he recalled that he committed no traffic violations. While the video does not show how fast Gabaldon was driving, whether he signaled, or his full turn, Gabaldon maintained that the video does not not support his recollection of events. A district court can disregard a contrary affidavit that constitutes an attempt to create a sham fact issue. To determine whether an affidavit creates a sham fact issue, courts consider whether (1) the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony, (2) the affiant had access to the pertinent evidence when he gave his earlier testimony or whether the affidavit was based on newly discovered evidence, and (3) the earlier testimony exhibited confusion that the affidavit tries to explain. Here, Gabaldon’s previous testimony occurred during a deposition in which he was cross-examined, so defendants satisfied the first factor. Second, Smith’s video was not new evidence, and at his deposition, Gabaldon did not dispute the critical facts in Smith’s report. Lastly, Gabaldon did not assert that he was confused at his deposition but rather alleged that he remembered things that he forgot, so the affidavit did not try to explain confusion at the deposition. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Gabaldon’s affidavit.
Gabaldon further asserted that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because he disputed that Smith had probable cause to effectuate the stop. However, officers are required to have reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, which observed traffic violations supply. Here, the evidence indicates that Gabaldon violated traffic laws, and he agrees that no material factual issue exists for those violations without his affidavit. Because the district court properly excluded the affidavit, it correctly concluded that the evidence showed that Gabaldon committed multiple traffic violations and that Smith had reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.
The judgment was affirmed.