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

• While on patrol, Deputy Mark Gurule observed the Defendant driving at a high rate of speed. Upon stopping the Defendant for speeding, Deputy Gurule detected the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, observed smoke inside the vehicle, and noted that the Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana before driving. The Defendant failed to consent to field sobriety tests and resisted arrest, leading to charges of driving while under the influence of drugs (DWI), resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, and speeding (paras 3, 13-16).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court erred in denying her motion to suppress due to lack of reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, contended there was insufficient evidence to sustain the DWI conviction, and claimed the court applied the incorrect standard in finding her guilty of DWI (paras 4, 12, 24).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that Deputy Gurule had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop based on the Defendant's speeding, argued that there was substantial evidence to support the DWI conviction, and opposed the Defendant's claim regarding the application of the incorrect legal standard (paras 4-11, 12-23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for driving while under the influence of marijuana.
• Whether the metropolitan court committed fundamental error by applying the incorrect standard in finding the Defendant guilty of DWI.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the convictions for driving while under the influence of drugs (DWI), resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, and speeding (para 31).

Reasons

• Per BACA, J. (ATTREP, J., and MEDINA, J., concurring):
  The court held that the metropolitan court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress, finding that Deputy Gurule had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop based on the Defendant's speeding. The court considered the entire record, including dashcam video evidence, to affirm the denial of the motion to suppress (paras 4-11).
  The court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction, noting the Defendant's admission to smoking marijuana, observations of her impaired behavior, and refusal to perform field sobriety tests. The court rejected the Defendant's argument that expert testimony was required to establish a link between marijuana use and impaired driving capability (paras 12-23).
  The court declined to consider the Defendant's argument regarding the application of the incorrect legal standard for DWI conviction due to lack of preservation and inadequate briefing. The court noted that the metropolitan court applied the standard for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor instead of drugs but did not further address the issue due to the Defendant's failure to develop the argument on appeal (paras 24-30).