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

• On December 22, 2012, a State Police Officer observed Johnny Maxwell driving without a seatbelt and with inadequate tail light illumination. Upon stopping Maxwell, the officer noticed signs of intoxication, conducted field sobriety tests, and subsequently arrested Maxwell for suspicion of driving while under the influence of liquor. After being read the advisory under the Implied Consent Act and administered a breath alcohol test, which registered .10 grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath, Maxwell requested an independent test at a hospital. The officer provided a phone for arrangements but declined to transport Maxwell to the hospital for the test. Maxwell was later taken to the hospital by his mother, but the test was not performed due to the absence of a life-threatening situation (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Socorro County: The breathalyzer test samples taken by Officer Lafave were suppressed, finding the officer's refusal to transport Maxwell to the hospital for an independent test unreasonable and in violation of Maxwell's rights under the Implied Consent Act (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Implied Consent Act does not require an arresting officer to transport a person to obtain an independent chemical test (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Johnny Maxwell): Contended that the officer's refusal to transport him to the hospital for an independent test was unreasonable and violated his rights under the Implied Consent Act (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Implied Consent Act requires an arresting officer to transport a person arrested for driving under the influence to obtain an independent chemical test (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court’s order suppressing the breath test samples taken by Officer Lafave and remanded for further proceedings (para 20).

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J. (VANZI, J., ZAMORA, J., concurring): The court held that the Implied Consent Act does not require an arresting officer to transport a person to obtain an independent chemical test. The Act only requires that law enforcement personnel provide a reasonable opportunity for the person being tested to arrange for an independent test. The court found that the statutory language of the Implied Consent Act does not state a requirement for transportation to another location for the test to be performed. The court emphasized the importance of the right to an independent test but clarified that it does not extend to requiring law enforcement officers to transport arrested drivers to locations of their choosing for such tests. The court also noted that practical difficulties in obtaining an independent test do not necessitate a reinterpretation of the Act to include transportation requirements (paras 6-19).