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 charged with aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The case revolves around the veracity of statements made by the officer in the search warrant affidavit, specifically regarding the Defendant's prior DUI convictions. The officer claimed the Defendant had three prior DUI convictions, which was contested by the Defendant, who argued he had only one prior conviction, with another charge having been dismissed (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Granted the Defendant's motion to suppress blood evidence, finding the officer's affidavit lacked probable cause due to incorrect statements about the Defendant's prior DUI convictions (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress and contended that the Defendant did not preserve a challenge to the veracity of the officer's statements in the search warrant affidavit (paras 2, 6-7).
- Appellee (Defendant): Argued that the officer's affidavit contained false statements regarding his prior DUI convictions, which were material to the finding of probable cause for the search warrant (paras 2-3).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress based on the alleged false statements in the officer's affidavit.
- Whether the Defendant preserved a challenge to the veracity of the officer's statements in the search warrant affidavit.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress the blood evidence (para 8).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Attrep C.J. and Duffy J. concurring):
The Court found that the district court properly assessed the veracity of the officer's statements in the search warrant affidavit. The district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress was supported by substantial evidence, as the officer admitted he did not know whether the Defendant had three prior DUI convictions at the time of applying for the search warrant. The State failed to demonstrate any error in the district court's ruling, as it did not adequately develop its argument regarding the alleged error. The Court also noted that the State did not address the preservation of the issue in its brief, contrary to appellate rules (paras 2-8).