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 first offense DWI and speeding. During a traffic stop for speeding, the arresting officer expanded the investigation into a DWI based on the Defendant's speed and the strong smell of alcohol. The Defendant argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the DWI investigation and that the arrest violated the misdemeanor arrest rule because the officer did not witness the suspected violation directly.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge: Affirmed the sentencing order convicting the Defendant for first offense DWI and speeding.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a DWI investigation, constituting an invalid de facto arrest. Also contended that the arresting officer violated the misdemeanor arrest rule by not directly witnessing the suspected violation and being unnecessarily called in by another officer.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant for a DWI investigation based on the observed facts.
• Whether the arresting officer's actions violated the misdemeanor arrest rule due to not directly witnessing the suspected violation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and the Defendant's convictions for first offense DWI and speeding.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate error in the district court's judgment. The Defendant conceded that the record did not support her claim that her detention constituted a de facto arrest, focusing instead on whether the officer had reasonable suspicion for a DWI investigation. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the Defendant's speeding and the strong smell of alcohol. The court also addressed the Defendant's argument regarding the misdemeanor arrest rule, noting that the Defendant waived this issue by failing to obtain a ruling on it before entering into a plea agreement. The court referenced State v. Martinez to reject the Defendant's contention that the misdemeanor arrest rule's failure to apply constituted fundamental error, affirming the convictions based on the officer's reasonable suspicion and the lack of fundamental error in applying the misdemeanor arrest rule.