AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 convicted for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) and expired registration. The conviction followed a hearing on the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after a police officer stopped the Defendant's car, believing the Defendant was fleeing a scene of domestic violence or disturbance (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the Defendant's conviction pursuant to a conditional plea for DWI and expired registration, following a hearing on Defendant’s motion to suppress (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant-Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's car, initially focusing on the stop being pretextual and later shifting to argue that investigatory stops for completed misdemeanors may not be permissible (paras 2-3).
• Appellee-Appellee (State): Contended that there were specific, articulable facts showing that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant’s car because he believed Defendant was fleeing a scene of domestic violence or disturbance (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's car based on the belief that the Defendant was fleeing a scene of domestic violence or disturbance (para 2).
• Whether investigatory stops for completed misdemeanors are permissible under the circumstances described (para 3).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction, adopting the district court’s memorandum opinion (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Julie J. Vargas, J. Miles Hanisee, and Linda M. Vanzi, considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded by the arguments presented. The Court found the district court's examination thorough and well-reasoned, specifically noting that the State demonstrated specific, articulable facts justifying the stop based on suspicion of fleeing from domestic violence or disturbance. The Defendant's shift in argument to the permissibility of investigatory stops for completed misdemeanors was deemed waived due to failure to maintain the initial pretext argument. Furthermore, the Defendant did not provide facts or law to support the claim that the domestic violence investigation could not support reasonable suspicion, nor did she adequately develop her argument regarding the permissibility of stops for completed misdemeanors. The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to demonstrate error in the district court's analysis or the appellate court's proposed adoption thereof (paras 2-5).