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 involved in a head-on collision and subsequently arrested for aggravated driving while under the influence (DWI). At the time of the arrest, the Defendant exhibited bloodshot watery eyes, an odor of alcohol, and admitted to drinking before driving.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arrest was made without probable cause, contending that the factors leading to the arrest should not be considered as the arresting officer did not subjectively rely on them. Additionally, argued that the officer's belief that an arrest was necessary before administering a blood draw under the Implied Consent Act was based on a mistake of law. Finally, contended that there were no indicia of intoxication prior to the arrest and urged the court to consider Colorado cases.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on objective factors such as the Defendant's involvement in a collision, odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, and admission to drinking. Argued that the officer's subjective state of mind and potential confusion regarding the Implied Consent Act were irrelevant to the determination of probable cause.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was arrested without probable cause.
• Whether the arresting officer's subjective belief regarding the necessity of arrest for a blood draw under the Implied Consent Act affects the legality of the arrest.
• Whether the Defendant's arrest was supported by indicia of intoxication.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on objective factors, including the Defendant's involvement in a collision, odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes, and admission to drinking before driving. The court held that the officer's subjective state of mind was immaterial to the determination of probable cause, which must be assessed based on an objective evaluation of the facts confronting the officer. The court also noted that the law supports the officer's belief that an arrest was required before proceeding with a blood draw under the Implied Consent Act. Furthermore, the court rejected the Defendant's contention that there were no indicia of intoxication prior to the arrest, citing New Mexico cases that recognized the factors present as valid indicia of intoxication. The court declined to consider Colorado law as urged by the Defendant, affirming the conviction based on the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed summary disposition.