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 11:00 p.m. on October 15, 2009, a police officer in Taos, New Mexico, observed the Defendant speaking to a man outside his car at a stop sign for what the officer deemed an "unusual" length of time. The officer followed the Defendant, who subsequently changed lanes abruptly, passed a slower vehicle on the right, and returned to the left lane. The officer stopped the Defendant, issuing verbal warnings for passing on the right and exhibition of speed, and a citation for careless driving. The Defendant was later arrested and convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in magistrate court.
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: The Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and not guilty of careless driving.
- District Court: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was granted on the grounds that the traffic stop was pretextual and violated the New Mexico Constitution. All evidence obtained during the stop was suppressed, and the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress, asserting that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant for careless driving and that the stop was not pretextual.
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the stop was pretextual, motivated by the officer's suspicion of unrelated criminal activity, and lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The Defendant also argued that the officer made a mistake of law regarding the alleged traffic violations.
Legal Issues
- Was the traffic stop of the Defendant supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
- Was the traffic stop pretextual and therefore unconstitutional under the New Mexico Constitution?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges against the Defendant.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Celia Foy Castillo and Robert E. Robles, JJ., concurring):
The Court held that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop. The officer's belief that the Defendant violated traffic laws by passing on the right and engaging in an exhibition of speed was based on a mistake of law. Passing on the right is permitted under New Mexico law on a four-lane highway, and the exhibition of speed statute applies only to drag racing or speed competitions, which were not alleged in this case.
The Court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant's driving constituted careless driving, as the officer's testimony did not establish that the Defendant's actions endangered other drivers or compromised safety. The officer did not testify that the Defendant exceeded the speed limit, appeared distracted, or lost control of the vehicle.
The Court concluded that the district court's finding of pretext was unnecessary because the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges were upheld under the "right-for-any-reason" doctrine.