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

• Deborah Bransford-Wakefield was arrested for driving while intoxicated, leading to proceedings by the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) to revoke her driver's license under the Implied Consent Act. She requested a discovery order from the MVD, which was granted, but she did not learn of a video recording of her field sobriety tests until the day before her hearing. At the hearing, the officer testified about her failure to perform the sobriety tests correctly, leading to the revocation of her license. Bransford-Wakefield argued she was denied due process due to not receiving the video in discovery and contested the officer's reasonable suspicion for the stop (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Affirmed the decision of the hearing officer, holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply in an administrative hearing and that it could not take judicial notice of or supplement the record with the criminal proceeding against Bransford-Wakefield (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the officer's testimony on the field sobriety tests was improperly admitted without the video, which would have been the best evidence. Also claimed deprivation of due process due to the failure to provide the video in discovery (paras 6-7).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the late filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari due to the attorney's illness constitutes an unusual circumstance that warrants waiving the timeliness requirement for the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction (para 1).
• Whether the petitioner was denied due process by not receiving the video in discovery and whether the officer had reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop (paras 4-5, 7).

Disposition

• The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied as untimely because the attorney’s illness did not constitute an unusual circumstance justifying the late filing (para 16).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring): The Court concluded that the attorney's unspecified illness did not meet the threshold of an unusual circumstance to excuse the late filing of the petition. The Court emphasized that timeliness is a mandatory precondition for its jurisdiction and that illness, especially when filing is left to the last day, is not uncommon or beyond the control of the parties in a manner that would excuse lateness. The Court also noted that its review of the district court’s order from an administrative agency is discretionary and that the parties had already been afforded an appeal as of right at the district court level. The Court distinguished its decision from Supreme Court cases that excused minor lateness under different circumstances, highlighting that those cases involved the right to one appeal, which did not apply here since the appeal to the district court had already occurred (paras 9-15).