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 appellant was stopped by a police officer for erratic driving, including failing to maintain his lane, clipping a median, and nearly causing an accident. The officer observed signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. After failing a field sobriety test, the appellant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He refused to take a breath test on the portable device in the officer's vehicle, insisting instead on using a stationary machine at the police station, which he claimed was more reliable. The officer deemed this a refusal under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- Motor Vehicle Division Hearing: The hearing officer found that the appellant refused to submit to the breath test as required under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act and revoked his driver's license for one year (paras 7-8).
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision to revoke the appellant's license (para 8).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that his actions did not constitute a refusal to take a breath test, as he was willing to take the test on a stationary machine. He also claimed that his due process rights were violated because the portable device was unreliable and that the hearing officer acted arbitrarily and capriciously in revoking his license (paras 2, 12, 22-24, 32).
- Respondent: Asserted that the appellant's refusal to take the test on the portable device constituted a refusal under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act. They argued that the appellant had no right to choose the testing device and that the hearing officer's decision was supported by substantial evidence (paras 2, 12, 20, 30).
Legal Issues
- Did the appellant's actions constitute a refusal to take a breath test under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act?
- Did the appellant's subsequent offer to take a test on a different machine cure his initial refusal?
- Were the appellant's due process rights violated by the officer's choice of testing device or the hearing officer's decision?
- Was the hearing officer's decision to revoke the appellant's license arbitrary and capricious?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to uphold the revocation of the appellant's driver's license for one year (para 34).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Pickard and Black JJ. concurring):
Refusal to Take Test: The court held that the appellant's refusal to take the test on the portable device, coupled with his conditional consent to use a different machine, constituted a refusal under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act. The Act requires motorists to submit to the test designated by law enforcement, and conditional consent is treated as a refusal (paras 12-14).
Subsequent Consent: The court rejected the appellant's argument that his subsequent offer to take a test on a different machine cured his refusal. Applying the five-part test from State v. Suazo, the court found that the appellant's actions were not reasonable, as he was attempting to delay the test and choose his own conditions, unlike the cooperative defendant in Suazo (paras 16-19).
Due Process: The court found no due process violation. The appellant had no right to refuse the test based on his belief that the portable device was unreliable. The proper avenue to challenge the reliability of the test was at the revocation hearing, not in the field. The court also noted that the appellant failed to show any prejudice from taking the test (paras 22-27).
Arbitrary and Capricious Action: The court determined that the hearing officer's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The findings were consistent with the evidence, and the hearing officer acted within the scope of the law (paras 32-33).