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 intoxicated (DWI) after a traffic stop initiated due to a broken, glaring taillight. The officer, assigned to the DWI team, suspected the Defendant of DWI prior to observing the taillight violation. The Defendant argued that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop, unconstitutional under established case law, as it was based on an impermissible motive to investigate for DWI without reasonable suspicion.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order convicting the Defendant for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained from an unconstitutional pretextual stop, asserting that the officer had no reasonable suspicion of DWI at the time of the stop.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on the claim that the traffic stop was an unconstitutional pretextual stop.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, which upheld the metropolitan court’s sentencing order convicting the Defendant for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate error in the denial of her motion to suppress. The analysis focused on whether the traffic stop was pretextual, considering the totality of the circumstances and the officer's motive. The Court concluded that the Defendant did not establish pretext, noting that the officer did not decide to pull over the Defendant until after observing the broken, glaring taillight, which was a legitimate concern for traffic safety. The Court emphasized that an officer is permitted to have more than one suspicion about a defendant and that the objective reason articulated for the stop, in this case, was necessary for the protection of traffic safety. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the metropolitan court’s findings that the officer stopped the Defendant for the broken taillight based on his concern for traffic safety, thus affirming the district court’s judgment (paras 1-8).