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 under the influence of liquor or drugs (DWI) after an officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, found an open alcohol container in the vehicle, noted the Defendant's admission to drinking, and observed poor performance on standardized field sobriety tests (SFST) (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of DWI.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence of probable cause for the arrest and that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless arrest. Additionally, contended that the State failed to prove the Intoxylizer 8000 was properly calibrated, making the breath alcohol test (BAT) card inadmissible (paras 2-4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence of probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI?
- Were exigent circumstances present to justify the warrantless arrest of the Defendant?
- Was the breath alcohol test (BAT) card admissible given the calibration status of the Intoxylizer 8000?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for DWI (para 6).
Reasons
Per Henderson, Judge (Duffy and Yohalem, JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the officer had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for DWI based on the strong odor of alcohol, the open container, the Defendant's admission to drinking, and poor performance on SFSTs. The Court declined to reweigh the evidence as requested by the Defendant (para 2). The Court also concluded that exigent circumstances were present, as the arrest was made on-the-scene, satisfying the requirement for a warrantless arrest (para 3). Regarding the admissibility of the BAT card, the Court determined that the officer's testimony about the Intoxylizer's certification and calibration was sufficient, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the BAT card (paras 4-5).