This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by a deputy after his vehicle was observed making erratic and jerky movements within its lane. The Defendant was subsequently charged with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI). During the investigation, the deputy conducted a breath test, which included a twenty-minute deprivation period and a calibration check of the breathalyzer machine. The Defendant contested the validity of the stop and the admissibility of the breath test results, arguing procedural and regulatory violations.
Procedural History
- District Court, San Juan County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence supporting the DWI charge. (headnotes)
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop, as the Defendant was driving within his lane and slightly under the speed limit. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the breathalyzer machine was not properly calibrated, the twenty-minute deprivation period was not correctly observed, and the machine's certification and maintenance were not adequately established.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the deputy had reasonable suspicion based on the Defendant's erratic driving. The State also argued that the breathalyzer machine was properly calibrated, the twenty-minute deprivation period was observed, and the machine's certification and maintenance complied with regulations.
Legal Issues
- Did the deputy have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle?
- Was the breathalyzer machine properly calibrated in compliance with regulations?
- Was the twenty-minute deprivation period correctly observed before the breath tests?
- Did the State establish proper certification and maintenance of the breathalyzer machine?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
-
Reasonable Suspicion: The Court found that the deputy had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle based on the observation of erratic and jerky movements within the lane, which indicated potentially impaired or careless driving. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion does not require a traffic violation but rather a reasonable belief of impairment.
-
Calibration Check: The Court concluded that the breathalyzer machine was properly calibrated. The deputy testified that a calibration check was conducted before the first breath test, satisfying the regulatory requirement.
-
Twenty-Minute Deprivation Period: The Court held that the twenty-minute deprivation period was properly observed. The deputy testified that the Defendant was in handcuffs during the period, making it unlikely that he could have placed anything in his mouth. The Court also rejected the argument that a new deprivation period was required after the first failed test, as the purpose of the regulation was met.
-
Certification and Maintenance: The Court determined that the State met its burden of establishing the breathalyzer machine's certification and maintenance. The deputy testified that the machine was certified on the day of the test, and the Defendant failed to provide evidence of any specific regulatory violations.
The Court found no abuse of discretion by the district court and affirmed its decision.