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

• A citizen report of drunk driving led to a traffic stop of Defendant Dino Morgan by an officer who observed signs of impaired driving. During the stop, before conducting field sobriety tests, the officer inquired about Morgan's route of travel. Morgan was subsequently arrested and convicted for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) (para 4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge, November 19, 2018: Conviction for DWI upheld.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the arrest was unsupported by probable cause. Additionally, argued that the officer's inquiry into his route exceeded the permissible scope of the DWI investigation (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the traffic stop and subsequent arrest were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and that the officer's questions were within the scope of the investigation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop.
• Whether the arrest of the Defendant was supported by probable cause.
• Whether the officer's inquiry into the Defendant's route exceeded the permissible scope of the DWI investigation.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The conviction for DWI was affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (M. Monica Zamora, J., and Daniel J. Gallegos, J., concurring): The court found that the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on a citizen report and the officer's observations of impaired driving. The court also held that the arrest was supported by probable cause. Regarding the officer's inquiry into the Defendant's route, the court concluded that such questions generally do not expand the scope of the investigation beyond what justified the initial stop, citing State v. Duran and State v. Leyva. The court determined that even if the inquiry was improper, it did not result in the discovery of evidence that would warrant suppression. The court distinguished this case from State v. Bell, where non-traffic-related inquiries led to the discovery of incriminating evidence. The court's decision was based on the analysis that the stop and subsequent DWI investigation were justified, and the officer's questions about the Defendant's route did not constitute an illegal expansion of the investigation (paras 2-8).