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, Cristina Caballero, was stopped by a police officer and subsequently entered a conditional plea to charges of driving while intoxicated and failing to maintain her traffic lane. The plea was entered in magistrate court, with the condition that the issue of suppressing evidence obtained during the traffic stop could be reviewed by the district court.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, Steven L. Bell, District Judge: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Cristina Caballero): Argued that her detention was unlawful because the arresting officer was not in uniform, citing statutory provisions that require arresting officers to be in uniform clearly indicating their official status at the time of arrest.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the arresting officer was in "uniform" as required by statutory provisions at the time of the Defendant's arrest.
• Whether the officer's attire and presentation provided sufficient indicia of authority to a reasonable person.
• Whether the officer's affiliation with the Department of Public Safety’s special investigations division affected the legality of the traffic stop.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that the district court did not err in its decision to deny the motion to suppress. The Court found that appellate review of a motion to suppress involves mixed questions of fact and law, with deference given to the district court's findings if supported by substantial evidence. The Court analyzed the statutory requirements for an officer to be in uniform during an arrest and applied precedents from State v. Archuleta and State v. Maes to determine that the officer's attire and the presentation of authority (including the use of an official vest with "Police" written on it, a visible badge and gun, and emergency lights on the vehicle) were sufficient for a reasonable person to recognize the officer's official status. The Court also addressed and rejected the Defendant's argument regarding the officer's authority to make the traffic stop based on his divisional affiliation, noting that this issue was not preserved for review as it was not properly raised in the district court.