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 DWI. The issue arose from the administration of breath-alcohol tests, specifically whether the officer complied with the regulatory requirement that the subject should not have eaten, drunk, or smoked for at least 20 minutes prior to the collection of the first breath sample. The Defendant contended that his burping necessitated the commencement of a new 20-minute deprivation period before the breath test could be administered.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in determining that the officer complied with the regulatory requirement for administering breath-alcohol tests, contending that a new 20-minute deprivation period should have been started due to the Defendant burping before the test.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining that the officer who administered the Defendant's breath-alcohol tests complied with the regulatory requirement that the subject has not had anything to eat, drink, or smoke for at least 20 minutes prior to the collection of the first breath sample, especially considering the Defendant's burping.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found the Defendant's argument that a new 20-minute deprivation period should be required after burping to be unsupported by the plain language of the regulation or case law. The Court also found unpersuasive the Defendant's reliance on out-of-state authority and a manual not part of the record. The Court was unwilling to add additional requirements onto the regulation, especially considering its history and evolution, which previously included but then omitted language regarding burping during the deprivation period. Therefore, the Court rejected the Defendant's assertion of error and affirmed the conviction (paras 1-5).