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 case involves the Defendant, Fernando Lucero, who was pulled over by an officer after his vehicle's tires crossed over the outer lane line separating the lane from the shoulder of the road three times and touched the lane line twice over a span of two-and-a-half miles. The officer initiated the traffic stop based on the suspicion of impairment due to the Defendant's manner of driving. The Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that the officer did not have an objectively reasonable suspicion of a violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-317(A) (1978), which mandates driving within a single lane as nearly as practicable.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that the evidence obtained during the traffic stop should be suppressed because the officer did not have an objectively reasonable suspicion that the Defendant had violated Section 66-7-317(A), as the Defendant's vehicle merely crossed and touched the lane line, which does not constitute a violation of the statute.
• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Contended that the officer had an objectively reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop based on the Defendant's repeated crossing of the lane line, suggesting a violation of Section 66-7-317(A) and raising concerns about possible impairment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, based on the assertion that the officer did not have an objectively reasonable suspicion of a violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66-7-317(A).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop.

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge, with KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and VIGIL, Judge concurring, provided the opinion. The Court found that the district court did not err in its decision to grant the Defendant's motion to suppress. The Court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 66-7-317(A), which requires a vehicle to be driven within a single lane as nearly as practicable. The Court referenced the case of Archibeque v. Homrich, which interpreted the statute as not applicable in situations where there is no other traffic that might be sideswiped or collide with due to the vehicle straying from its lane. Since there were no other vehicles around when the Defendant's vehicle crossed and touched the lane line, the officer did not have an objectively reasonable basis to suspect a violation of Section 66-7-317(A). Additionally, the Court noted that the State failed to preserve an argument for an alternative statutory basis for the stop in the district court, specifically not addressing or arguing the possibility of impairment or any other statutory basis for the stop beyond the alleged violation of Section 66-7-317(A).