This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A police service aide (PSA) detained the Defendant in his driveway after he rear-ended another vehicle and fled the scene. The PSA, who was not a commissioned officer, handcuffed the Defendant until police arrived. The Defendant was charged with aggravated DWI, second offense, after admitting to drinking and consenting to a blood test, which revealed a BAC of 0.36 (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court: Denied the Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence, ruling that the detention and arrest were lawful and that the blood test consent was valid (paras 5-6).
- State v. Slayton, No. 27,892 (N.M. Ct. App. June 30, 2008): The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision, holding that the PSA’s detention did not amount to an arrest and that the Defendant’s consent to the blood test was voluntary. A dissenting opinion argued the detention was illegal and impacted the validity of the blood test consent (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the PSA lacked statutory authority to detain or arrest him, making the seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the Defendant claimed his consent to the blood test was coerced (paras 1, 5, 35).
- State: Contended that the PSA’s actions were reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It also argued that the Defendant’s consent to the blood test was valid and voluntary (paras 8, 35).
Legal Issues
- Did the PSA’s lack of statutory authority to detain or arrest the Defendant violate the Fourth Amendment?
- Was the Defendant’s consent to the blood test coerced and therefore invalid?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant’s conviction (para 39).
Reasons
Per Chávez CJ (Serna, Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
Preservation of Issues: The Court found that the Defendant adequately preserved the issue of the PSA’s authority to detain him for appellate review (paras 8-10).
PSA’s Authority: The PSA lacked statutory authority to detain or arrest the Defendant under New Mexico law, as only commissioned officers may arrest individuals for motor vehicle violations (paras 11-17).
State Action: The PSA’s actions constituted state action because she was acting as an agent of the Roswell Police Department, even though she exceeded her statutory authority (paras 21-24).
Fourth Amendment Analysis: The Court held that the PSA’s lack of statutory authority did not render the seizure unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment focuses on whether the seizure was supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, not on compliance with state law (paras 28-34).
Consent to Blood Test: The Defendant’s consent to the blood test was valid under the Implied Consent Act. The Court rejected the argument that the consent was coerced, as the Defendant was not forcibly tested, and the officer’s explanation of the consequences of refusal did not invalidate the consent (paras 35-38).