This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
At approximately 1:50 a.m. on October 10, 2008, a law enforcement officer observed the Defendant making a wide left turn near a bar known for a high incidence of intoxicated drivers. The officer followed the Defendant and noted speeding, drifting toward the center lane, and difficulty controlling the vehicle. The Defendant was stopped and subsequently cited for aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI).
Procedural History
- District Court, Chaves County: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the grounds of a pretextual stop was denied. The court found that while the initial wide turn did not provide reasonable suspicion, the officer's observations of speeding, drifting, and loss of control justified the stop.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the stop was pretextual, motivated by the officer's suspicion that the Defendant had been drinking at a nearby bar, and not based on reasonable suspicion of impaired driving. The Defendant contended that the officer improperly followed him to find a justification for the stop.
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the stop was justified based on the officer's observations of the Defendant's erratic driving, which provided reasonable suspicion of impairment. The State argued that the stop was not pretextual and was conducted within constitutional limits.
Legal Issues
- Was the traffic stop of the Defendant justified at its inception based on reasonable suspicion of impaired driving?
- Was the stop pretextual under the New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop based on the Defendant's observed speeding, drifting, and loss of control, which indicated potential impairment. The Court emphasized that the officer's actions were consistent with constitutional protections, as the stop was based on specific and articulable facts rather than a pretext to investigate unrelated criminal activity. The officer's motive aligned with the objective existence of reasonable suspicion, and the stop was not pretextual under the New Mexico Constitution.