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 after allegedly attempting to avoid a sobriety checkpoint. The Defendant moved to suppress the testimony of any officer who interacted with him near the checkpoint, arguing that the vehicle stop lacked reasonable suspicion (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress the testimony of the investigating officer, finding that the State failed to present specific articulable facts justifying the vehicle stop (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the Defendant's motion to suppress was solely based on the constitutionality of the sobriety checkpoint and that the Defendant improperly introduced a new argument regarding the reasonableness of the vehicle stop on the day of the trial (para 1).
- Appellee (Defendant): Argued that the State mischaracterized the motion to suppress and that the State was unprepared to proceed with the trial due to a lack of witnesses to testify about the reasonable suspicion for the vehicle stop (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Did the State waive its argument regarding the lack of notice of the Defendant's motion to suppress by proceeding with the trial without objection? (para 5)
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Court to suppress the testimony of the investigating officer (para 7).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Bogardus and Wray JJ. concurring): The Court found that the State waived its argument about the lack of notice regarding the Defendant's motion to suppress by choosing to proceed with the trial without objecting to the particularity of the motion or seeking a continuance. The State's failure to invoke a ruling on the issue of notice and its decision to present testimony on the motion's grounds, including reasonable suspicion, constituted a waiver of any argument regarding the lack of particularity in the Defendant's motion (paras 5-6).