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 at a police sobriety checkpoint in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where her breath alcohol content (BAC) was measured at 0.12, exceeding the legal limit of 0.08. At the same checkpoint, another driver, the brother of a police officer, was found to have a BAC of 0.09 but was not charged and was instead given a ride home by the police, contrary to established procedures. The Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and argued that the police's failure to charge the other driver rendered the roadblock unconstitutional and violated her right to equal protection (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: The Defendant was convicted of DWI after her motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges was denied (para 5).
- District Court: The conviction was affirmed on appeal (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the roadblock was unconstitutional due to police misconduct in failing to charge another intoxicated driver, violating the requirement for uniform procedures. Alternatively, claimed that the decision to prosecute her but not the other driver violated her right to equal protection under the law (paras 1, 8, 16).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the roadblock complied with constitutional guidelines and that the failure to charge the other driver did not affect the validity of the Defendant's stop, arrest, or prosecution. Further argued that the Defendant failed to establish discriminatory intent or effect to support an equal protection claim (paras 8, 17-18).
Legal Issues
- Did the police's failure to charge another intoxicated driver render the roadblock unconstitutional?
- Did the decision to prosecute the Defendant but not the other driver violate the Defendant's right to equal protection under the law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 19).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):
- The Court held that the constitutionality of a roadblock is determined by the procedures used during the initial stop, not by subsequent police actions. The roadblock in question complied with established guidelines, and the Defendant did not challenge the procedures used to stop her vehicle (paras 6-8, 13, 15).
- The Court rejected the argument that the failure to charge another driver invalidated the roadblock. It found no connection between the police's misconduct in releasing the other driver and the Defendant's stop, arrest, or prosecution. The misconduct did not involve an unconstitutional exercise of discretion, as the officer responsible was disciplined for violating procedures (paras 9-14).
- On the equal protection claim, the Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect. The Defendant was not "singled out" for prosecution, as she was one of many drivers charged based on their BAC levels. The failure to charge the other driver did not constitute selective prosecution, as it did not affect the decision to prosecute the Defendant (paras 16-18).