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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) after being observed performing dangerous driving maneuvers on a snow-packed road. Following the arrest, the Defendant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and placed in the backseat of a patrol car. A twenty-three-minute deprivation period was observed before a breath alcohol test (BrAT) was conducted to ensure no food, drink, or smoke interfered with the test results. The officer did not explicitly ask or check whether the Defendant had anything in his mouth prior to the deprivation period but relied on observations made during the arrest and field sobriety tests.
Procedural History
- District Court, Edmund H. Kase III, Judge: Convicted the Defendant of DWI and admitted the BrAT results as evidence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to meet the regulatory requirements for a valid twenty-minute deprivation period before administering the BrAT, as the officer did not take affirmative steps to ascertain whether the Defendant had anything in his mouth prior to the deprivation period. The Defendant also contended that the officer did not determine whether regurgitation occurred during the deprivation period.
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the officer complied with the regulatory requirements by ensuring the Defendant had no access to food, drink, or smoke during the deprivation period and that continuous observation was not required under the regulation. The State relied on the individualized, case-by-case approach established in State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037 (Willie II).
Legal Issues
- Did the State satisfy the regulatory requirements for a valid twenty-minute deprivation period before administering the BrAT?
- Was the district court correct in admitting the BrAT results as evidence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to admit the BrAT results and upheld the Defendant’s conviction for DWI.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Garcia and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court applied the New Mexico Supreme Court’s decision in Willie II, which established that the regulatory requirement for a twenty-minute deprivation period does not mandate continuous observation or specific affirmative steps, such as asking or checking the subject’s mouth. Instead, the regulation allows for an individualized, case-by-case approach to ascertain whether the subject had anything to eat, drink, or smoke during the deprivation period.
The Court found that the officer’s observations of the Defendant during the arrest and field sobriety tests, combined with the Defendant’s restraints and lack of access to food or drink during the deprivation period, were sufficient to meet the regulatory requirements. The officer’s failure to explicitly ask or check the Defendant’s mouth did not render the deprivation period invalid under Willie II.
The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument regarding regurgitation, noting that the requirement to monitor for regurgitation was part of a prior regulation that had been repealed. The Defendant failed to provide evidence or arguments showing that regurgitation occurred or how it would have affected the BrAT results.
Per Kennedy J., specially concurring:
Kennedy J. expressed skepticism about the scientific reliability of the regulation’s approach to regurgitation and mouth alcohol contamination. However, he concurred with the majority’s decision, acknowledging that the opinion was legally sound and consistent with binding precedent, despite his reservations about the scientific underpinnings of the regulation.