AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

Two defendants were arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after being observed driving erratically and showing signs of impairment. Following their arrests, they were subjected to breath alcohol tests (BrAT) approximately one hour later. During this time, they were restrained and under the observation of the arresting officers. The officers did not inspect their mouths or ask if they had consumed anything prior to the tests. The BrAT results indicated blood alcohol levels above the legal limit (paras 1, 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court: Both defendants were convicted of DWI (para 6).
• Court of Appeals: Reversed the convictions, holding that the regulation required officers to take affirmative steps, such as asking or checking, to ensure compliance with the 20-minute deprivation period (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff (State): Argued that the regulation does not mandate officers to "ask or check" whether a suspect has consumed anything during the deprivation period and that the officers' observations were sufficient to comply with the regulation (para 2).
• Defendants (Willie and Julian): Contended that the officers violated the regulation by failing to inspect their mouths or ask if they had consumed anything, rendering the BrAT results inadmissible (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Does Regulation 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC require BrAT operators to "ask or check" whether a suspect has consumed anything during the 20-minute deprivation period before administering a breath test?
• Was there sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the regulation was complied with?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, affirming Willie’s conviction and remanding Julian’s case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of an unrelated evidentiary issue (paras 18-19).

Reasons

Per Chávez CJ. (Serna, Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):

The Court held that Regulation 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC does not require BrAT operators to "ask or check" whether a suspect has consumed anything during the deprivation period. The term "ascertain" allows for flexibility in determining compliance, including observation and other methods, rather than mandating specific actions (paras 8-12). The Court noted that the regulation's language and historical amendments suggest an intent to broaden permissible methods for ensuring compliance (paras 13-14).

The Court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that the regulation was followed. The defendants were restrained and under observation for nearly an hour, making it unlikely they consumed anything during the deprivation period (para 16). The Court also declined to address the issue of regurgitation, as it was not raised on certiorari (para 17).

Finally, the Court overruled prior dicta in State v. Collins, 2005-NMCA-044, suggesting that officers must take affirmative steps to "ascertain" compliance with the regulation (para 18).