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), first offense. The conviction followed after a police officer stopped the Defendant based on information received about a "domestic disturbance." The officer did not observe any traffic violations or have specific facts indicating a physical altercation had occurred related to the Defendant.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the motion to suppress should be granted because there was not reasonable suspicion to support the stop.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (City of Farmington): Contended that it was reasonable for the officer to make a stop based on the information of a domestic nature and that this information reasonably supports the suspicion of a crime such as assault or battery.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was reasonable suspicion to support the stop of the Defendant based on the information of a "domestic disturbance."

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Roderick Kennedy, Chief Judge, and James J. Wechsler, Judge concurring:
  The appellate court initially proposed to reverse the district court's decision based on the lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop. The City of Farmington's response failed to provide additional facts or legal authority to support the notion that a report of a "domestic disturbance," without more detailed information, could constitute reasonable suspicion of a crime. The court emphasized that the City bears the burden of proving reasonable suspicion and noted that the officer did not observe any traffic violations or have specific facts to suggest a crime had occurred. The decision to reverse was based on the conclusion that the information available to the officer at the time of the stop did not provide objectively reasonable indications of criminal activity (paras 1-4).