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 Taco Bell employee reported a suspected drunk driver in a vehicle with two female occupants parked in the restaurant's lot. Officers arrived shortly after and approached the only vehicle present, a silver Pontiac. The driver denied drinking, and initial observations by two officers did not detect signs of intoxication. However, a third officer later detected a slight odor of alcohol and requested the driver to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs), which she failed. Subsequent breath tests showed blood alcohol levels of .12 and .13 (paras headnotes, paras 1-3, 6-8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain her and request FSTs based on the odor of alcohol detected by Officer Gomez (paras headnotes, para 9).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain her and to expand the investigation by requesting FSTs, particularly after the initial officers failed to detect signs of intoxication (paras headnotes, paras 1, 9, 12, 15).
- Appellee (State): Contended that the detention and subsequent investigation were justified based on the tip from the Taco Bell employee and the odor of alcohol detected by Officer Gomez, which provided reasonable suspicion to request FSTs (paras headnotes, paras 9, 12, 15).
Legal Issues
- Did the officers have reasonable suspicion to initially detain the Defendant based on the tip from the Taco Bell employee?
- Was the expansion of the investigation to include FSTs justified after the initial officers failed to detect signs of intoxication?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and upheld the Defendant’s conviction (paras headnotes, para 9).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Sutin and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant based on the tip from the Taco Bell employee, who personally observed the suspected impaired driving. The tip was deemed reliable as it was detailed, timely, and corroborated by the officers’ observations upon arrival.
The Court further found that the expansion of the investigation to include FSTs was justified. While the initial officers did not detect signs of intoxication, Officer Gomez later detected a slight odor of alcohol, which provided reasonable suspicion to request FSTs. The Court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and that reasonable suspicion can evolve based on new observations during the detention.
The Court distinguished this case from State v. Taylor, noting that in this instance, the investigation into alcohol consumption was the primary focus from the outset, and the odor of alcohol detected by Officer Gomez supported the continued detention and administration of FSTs.
The Court concluded that the officers acted diligently and within the scope of their investigation, affirming the district court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress.