This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A Navajo Tribal Officer, cross-commissioned as a deputy sheriff, stopped a vehicle in Gallup, New Mexico, after observing erratic driving and a near collision. The officer detected signs of intoxication in the driver, including the smell of alcohol, red and watery eyes, and beer cans in the vehicle. The officer detained the driver until a McKinley County deputy arrived, who conducted field sobriety tests and arrested the driver for driving while intoxicated (DWI) (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop. The Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to DWI, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the traffic stop, detention, and arrest were illegal because the tribal officer lacked authority to act as a New Mexico peace officer in Gallup under NMSA 1978, § 29-1-11(C)(8). The Defendant contended that this statute precluded tribal officers from exercising law enforcement authority in Gallup, even if cross-commissioned (paras 1, 5, 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that § 29-1-11 only governs commissions issued by the state police and does not apply to the tribal officer, who was cross-commissioned by the McKinley County Sheriff's Office. The State argued that the officer had proper authority to act as a deputy sheriff in Gallup (paras 6, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the tribal officer have the authority to stop and detain the Defendant in Gallup under NMSA 1978, § 29-1-11(C)(8)?
- Was the evidence obtained during the traffic stop admissible?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress evidence (para 13).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Sutin and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court held that NMSA 1978, § 29-1-11(C)(8), which excludes Gallup from the grant of authority for tribal officers commissioned by the state police, does not apply to tribal officers cross-commissioned by a county sheriff. The statute governs only agreements between tribes and the state police, not those involving county sheriffs. Since the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the tribal officer lacked authority as a cross-commissioned deputy sheriff, the Court found no error in the district court's ruling. The Defendant's remaining arguments, which relied on the officer's lack of authority, were therefore moot (paras 8-12).