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 arrested for obstructing an officer after refusing to comply with repeated instructions from police officers to leave the parking lot of a Denny's restaurant in Roswell, New Mexico. The officers had arrived in response to a loud argument involving the Defendant and others. While the officers determined no crimes had been committed, they ordered all parties to leave to prevent further disturbances. The Defendant refused to leave and was arrested (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Municipal Court: The Defendant was convicted of obstructing an officer (para 3).
- District Court: The Defendant appealed, arguing improper prosecution by an unauthorized city attorney and a Fourth Amendment violation. The district court upheld the conviction and remanded the case to municipal court for sentencing (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for obstructing an officer, as the police officers were not acting lawfully when they ordered him to leave; (2) his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because he was arrested on private property without a warrant or the commission of a crime; and (3) the assistant city attorney lacked authority to prosecute the case in district court without authorization from the district attorney (paras 1, 3, 6, 9-10).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the officers acted lawfully to prevent a breach of the peace; (2) the arrest was lawful because the Defendant committed the offense in the officers' presence; and (3) city attorneys have the authority to prosecute municipal ordinance violations in district court without district attorney authorization (paras 1, 6-8, 9, 12-13).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for obstructing an officer?
- Did the police officers violate the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him on private property without a warrant or the commission of a crime?
- Did the assistant city attorney have the authority to prosecute the case in district court without authorization from the district attorney?
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction for obstructing an officer was affirmed (para 15).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Pickard and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Defendant's refusal to leave the parking lot after repeated lawful instructions from police officers constituted obstruction under Roswell City Code § 10-48(a)(2). The officers acted lawfully to prevent a breach of the peace, as they had reasonable grounds to believe a disturbance was imminent (paras 4-8).
Fourth Amendment: The court rejected the Defendant's Fourth Amendment claim, noting that the arrest was lawful because the offense of obstructing an officer occurred in the officers' presence. Additionally, the Defendant did not move to suppress any evidence as a result of the alleged unlawful arrest, and an illegal arrest alone does not invalidate a conviction (para 9).
Authority of City Attorney: The court held that the assistant city attorney was authorized to prosecute the case in district court. The plain language of NMSA 1978, § 36-1-19(A) applies to representation of the state or counties, not municipalities. The Defendant's conviction was for violating a municipal ordinance, not a state statute, and the city attorney's prosecution was proper (paras 10-14).