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 by a police officer after being identified as leaving the scene of a domestic dispute. The officer observed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and the Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol. The Defendant refused field sobriety tests and initially refused a breath test but later attempted it unsuccessfully. A search warrant was obtained for a blood test, which revealed a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence (DWI) and sentenced as a fourth-time DWI offender.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the blood-test results should be suppressed because the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause and that the Legislature did not intend for DWI to be the felony justifying a search warrant under Section 66-8-111(A). Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the search warrant was improperly issued because he had cured his initial refusal to take a chemical test (paras 5-6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the search warrant was valid, the affidavit established probable cause, and the statute allowed for obtaining a search warrant irrespective of the Defendant's initial refusal to take a chemical test.
Legal Issues
- Did the search warrant affidavit establish probable cause to justify the blood test under Section 66-8-111(A)?
- Can a DWI offense serve as the felony required to justify a search warrant under Section 66-8-111(A)?
- Does Section 66-8-111(A) require a suspect to refuse a chemical test before a search warrant can be issued?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress, the denial of the motion for mistrial, and the Defendant's conviction (para 21).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Donnelly and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
Probable Cause: The Court held that the search warrant affidavit was sufficient. It contained reasonable inferences based on the officer's experience and reference to the Defendant's driving history, which indicated prior DWI convictions. The affidavit met the standard of probable cause by providing enough information for the magistrate to independently assess the situation (paras 7-13).
DWI as a Felony: The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the Legislature did not intend for DWI to be the felony justifying a search warrant under Section 66-8-111(A). The statute's plain language and purpose—to deter intoxicated driving—supported the use of DWI as the underlying felony (paras 14-16).
Refusal Requirement: The Court found that Section 66-8-111(A) does not require a suspect to refuse a chemical test before a search warrant can be issued. The statute allows for a warrant when there is probable cause to believe the suspect committed a felony while under the influence of alcohol. The Defendant's initial refusal and subsequent failure to provide a valid breath sample justified the warrant (paras 17-20).