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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) after a traffic stop initiated by an officer who observed that the Defendant's passenger had not fastened a seatbelt and that the seatbelt remained dangling as the vehicle began to move.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Sandra A. Price, District Judge: The Defendant's motion to suppress was denied, resulting in a conviction for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop because the officer only testified to not seeing the passenger fasten a seatbelt and could not remember key details about the passenger's seating position or whether an alternative seatbelt could have been used.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop based on the observation of a seatbelt violation.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, M. Monica Zamora, and J. Miles Hanisee, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The court emphasized that it does not act as a trier of fact on appeal and respects the district court's capacity to resolve issues of witness credibility. The district court credited the arresting officer's testimony, concluding that the officer had observed a violation of the seatbelt statute, which was dispositive of the Defendant's contentions. The appellate court found that the officer's belief in a traffic violation was supported by evidence, rendering alternative explanations irrelevant (paras 1-3).