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 police officers in Los Altos Park at 10:30 p.m., half an hour after the park's alleged closing time of 10:00 p.m. The officers testified that the park's closing time was posted on signs and was common knowledge among law enforcement. The Defendant was subsequently charged with first-offense DWI and possession of an open container.
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Found the Defendant guilty of first-offense DWI and possession of an open container.
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the Metropolitan Court's decision on an on-record appeal.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her, asserting that the stop was based on a mistake of law regarding the park's closing time. The Defendant also contended that the stop could not be justified under the community caretaking function and that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence of the park's closing time.
- Appellee (State): Maintained that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on their knowledge of the park's closing time and the posted signs. The State argued that the Defendant failed to provide evidence to rebut the officers' testimony or prove that the park closed later than 10:00 p.m..
Legal Issues
- Did the officers have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on the park's closing time?
- Was the stop justified under the community caretaking function?
- Did the officers' actions constitute a mistake of law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress.
Reasons
Per Fry CJ (Sutin and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant based on their testimony regarding the park's closing time and their familiarity with the area. The officers testified that signs in the park indicated a 10:00 p.m. closing time, and no evidence was presented to prove otherwise. The Court emphasized that the fact finder is responsible for determining the weight and credibility of evidence, and it was rational for the fact finder to be unpersuaded by the Defendant's photographic evidence, which did not conclusively rebut the officers' testimony.
The Court also noted that the Defendant failed to preserve the argument regarding the community caretaking function for appeal, as it was not properly raised in the lower court. Additionally, the Court found no mistake of law, as the officers' belief about the park's closing time was supported by evidence and was not objectively unreasonable.
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress and upheld the Defendant's convictions.