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 observed driving his truck off a curb from a bar parking lot into the eastbound lane of traffic while facing west. Upon noticing a police officer, the Defendant reversed back into the parking lot. The officer initiated a stop, suspecting impaired driving. The Defendant was subsequently charged with driving while intoxicated.
Procedural History
- Municipal Court: The Defendant was convicted under a municipal ordinance for driving while intoxicated.
- District Court: The Defendant appealed for a de novo trial, arguing for dismissal and suppression of evidence, but the conviction was upheld.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly took judicial notice of the municipal ordinance under which he was convicted and that the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted due to a lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court was entitled to take judicial notice of its own records and that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on his erratic driving and attempt to avoid the officer.
Legal Issues
- Was the district court correct in taking judicial notice of the municipal ordinance under which the Defendant was convicted?
- Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Kennedy and Garcia JJ. concurring):
-
Judicial Notice: The district court was presiding over a de novo trial and was entitled to take judicial notice of its own files and records, including the municipal ordinance referenced in the citation and complaints. This approach was consistent with precedent, including State v. Powers and City of Aztec v. Gurule.
-
Reasonable Suspicion: The officer’s observations of the Defendant’s erratic driving—driving off a curb into the wrong lane and reversing upon seeing the officer—provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The court emphasized that reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of circumstances and does not require corroboration by video evidence. The officer’s testimony was given appropriate weight by the factfinder.
The Court concluded that the district court acted properly in both taking judicial notice and finding reasonable suspicion, affirming the conviction.